Slashdot Mirror
China Wants US-Owned Hotels to Censor Internet
jp_papin writes "The Chinese government is demanding that US-owned hotels there filter Internet service during the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing, US Senator Sam Brownback has alleged. The Chinese government is requiring US-owned hotels to install Internet filters to 'monitor and restrict information coming in and out of China,' Brownback said Thursday. 'This is an insult to the spirit of the games and an affront to American businesses,' he said. 'I call on China to immediately rescind this demand.' US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he wasn't aware of those specific requests from the Chinese government, but Brownback said he got the information on Internet filtering from 'two different reliable but confidential sources.' The State Department is apparently continuing dialog with China about freedom of expression."
A senator quoting "reliable but confidential" sources on the internet? It's most likely from his pal, the Nigerian Prince, and also that nice wife of Mbutu Seke-seke. I've gotten reliable but confidential email from them, too, but they asked me not to talk to anyone about it.
John
I'm failing to see why this is a shock.
Do these US senators expect Chinese hotels in the US to follow US law? If so, then why the shock?
My Journal
And the Chinese have never really worried about foreigners with VPNs. Its the locals that need to be kept in control.
I think this senator got his information from the same reliable sources that found proof for Iraqi WMDs.
what did the US (and any other freedom loving person) expect when giving the Communist Chinese the Olympics?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I'm sure the American government has never asked foreign owned businesses to do anything they wouldn't like. I love the smell of politics in the morning. It smells like hypocrisy.
The way I see it, someone didn't do a proper business risk review when they made an investment in China, and now they are seeking help because things are not working as they planned.
Why not pull out our athletes out of the games until China adopts a default policy of Freedom and Liberty?
Fuck that Censorshit!
I'll take good old US Style Blanket Surveillance any-day!
Thanks AT&T! For keeping us safe by spying on us for the Bush Gang -- even if it is completely unlawful to do so!
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
How is that different from what's happening now? I stayed at the Hilton in Beijing (supposedly property of an American company) last year, and they of course filtered the net connection. No boobie pages, some political pages didn't work; even SSH connections were impossible for one whole day during my stay.
SoftMaker Office for Windows|Linux|Android
Hell, a lot of hotels in the U.S. aren't even owned by U.S. companies, their owned by the Japanese. That's true, at least, of every single hotel in Hawaii.
Of course we expect these hotels to operate in accordance with U.S. law. Of course, the thing is that the Japanese tend to always seek excellenece in their endeavors -- and, in their view, excellence includes strict compliance with the law.
OTOH, many hotels owned by American companies and individuals don't operate in accordance with U.S. law -- cleanliness standards that aren't up to state and federal health codes, employing undocumented workers as housekeeping staff.
So uhh...what is it they're screaming and handwaving about again?
My blog
In China, even *Americans* must obey Chinese law! Gee, who would have thought?
Don't like it? Your options are:
1. Don't do business there.
2. Ask them to change their laws. Good luck with that.
3. The Iraq thing. Good luck with that too.
A hotel is not an embassy; Chinese law applies within its walls.
No matter how much you dislike the chinese government's position, what this is nevertheless is enforcing rules on them, in their own country. Who cares if the hotels in question are "US-owned"? Would you accept that "chinese-owned" factories in, say, Texas, operate according to chinese rules?
If you start a hotel in China, you know that you're in China, and that chinese laws and customs apply to you. You may not like them, for whatever reason. You may think they are inhuman and evil, but they are the law of the land.
If you don't like it, there's a simple solution: Don't do business there!.
But no, our corporate masters want to have it both ways. None of the large international corporations would want to leave the huge chinese market to the competitors.
I don't support the chinese government in their position on censorship, oppression or the liberal application of the death penalty, but I do support them on their strong stand towards international corporations and anyone else messing with their internal politics. I think right now China is the only government not falling over backwards when some RIAA or Microsoft comes calling, and instead reminding them just who owns the land and the tanks.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I wouldn't worry about it too much. Senator Brownback just wants the internet requests from American hotels to move unimpeded through the NSA operated rooms at the telecoms.
(I'd be much less depressed if I were going for a funny mod...)
It seems rather hypocritical for US politicians to criticize censorship in China when they refuse to do anything to stop censorshop right here in the US and often support it. I am referring to the lack of action being taken on net neutrality and prohibuting corporations from censoring the internet. People think that because its a corporation its not a real threat, but it is. These corporations become de facto governments when they can control so many resources, such as major communications infrastructure, these corporations through their policies can have the same effect as government in effectively limiting free speech.This is why ISPs must be common carriers and required to carry all information over them verbatim.
Sometimes it seems the real reason the politicians criticize china is to cover up the fact that they allow censorship right here, and are representatives of the corporations that carry out this censorship. Politicians in the US take campaign donations from corporations, essentially the corporations elect them and they represent the corporations interest. Whoever has the best funding has the best chance of winning so corporations can control elections through who they give donations to. Add to that most of the US media is controlled by a few large corporate conglomerates who basically can filter and conspire to propogandise the ignorant and gullible public. People are not really the ones making the decisions anymore, the process is controlled by corporations and special interests, the american people are brainwashed into thinking they have a choice, when they really do not. You have a media which basically controls most of their information, and can tell them who to vote for, by excluding or including information you can control the available information they have to work with and thus their decision making. The way you make people think they have a choice is by giving them options, but controlling those options. A politicians campaign can easily be destroyed if their funding is withdrawn and the corporation and establishment can weed out those it does not like (like Kucinich, Paul, etc). The media simply ignores them or gives them a fraction of the attention of other preferred candidates.
Having grown up in Kansas and voted against him every chance I had I don't like the guy, and the company he keeps.
...
That being said..
one of his children is adopted from China. he puts his money where his mouth is sometimes, and I respect him for that sometimes.
But
Just look at his voting record. He's voted to force the installation of the same software China wants to use. It seems extremely hypocritical and headline grabbing move to me, instead of something true.
We are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that's the way it is and we like it apparently, because no one will make any effort. We like being the land of the monitored and home of the scared. It's not a big deal, and it's to stop the terrorists.
China's doing it because they're mean. We're doing it to protect you, so we're ok. That's the politicians logic for you.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
News flash for those that don't know. This is old news.
The "westerners" only hotels in China are censored. It is a little less lax then normal Chinese hotels (for example you can watch BBC). But there is censorship and even other rules, for example the only chinese allowed on the hotels premises when I was there had to be working in the hotel.
The censorship is more directed at the population though rather then to external sources.
Lastly it is their country, even if like me you don't agree with this. If you don't like, then don't go to the country.
The shock comes from China's promise to bolster freedom of expression and human right during the Olympic Games when Beijing was chosen a few years ago.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
In February 2006, the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton hotel (a franchise of the Sheraton group) in Mexico City was ordered by the US Treasury Department to throw out a group of Cuban officials who were staying there, because their presence violated US law and the Sheraton Group was an American company. In complying with the requirement, the hotel broke local law and faced $500,000 fines before the situation was smoothed over.
IOC doesn't even pretend to care about freedom. All they care about is money, while pretending to care about sport. [ Quite unlike the US, which only cares about money, while pretending to care about freedom. ]
This isn't too likely as many Chinese still do not own personal computers. Many obtain their access to the net via internet cafes. If you get your access at a cafe it kinds sucks because you are required to prove that you're 18 or older, which means you must present identification, which is recorded with the workstation you use and subsequently the IP address and time in which you used it.
For home access in larger cities like Shanghai, adsl is the way to go, and you purchase time, and you get a static IP. Also traceable to you.
I was in China for a couple of weeks immediately following the recent Tibet fracas (which is quite perplexing if you listen to all 3 sides of the discussion).
Based on my personal observation, The "Great Firewall" isn't so much a firewall (which in my eyes connotes address/port blocking) but it's more the corporate content filter. Too many keywords and your transmission gets squelched.
Example: The first day I tried to use myspace.com and I couldn't get a single word to load. The next day, Myspace would load, I could log in, but when I selected the option to update my personal Blog, I got half a page of unrendered HTML code. I didn't even bother after that.
Why is this marked funny? Back in 2001 during their Beijing hosting bid, China promised precisely NOT to do this. They also promised total freedom of movement and reporting for international press, which they have also broken (see: Tibet.) China is hoping you all have short memories, but I forget nothing. I wish I could link to a news article with all the stuff they promised, but going back that far most sites charge for access.
That's an easy little pot shot for you to take from whatever comfortable perch you are posting from.
As for me, I'm against censorship. If China does it then I am against it. If the USA, where I live, does it then I am against it. Injustice by my government, in this case 'NSA operated rooms at the telecoms' does not deny me the right or obligation to speak out against injustice anywhere else. So, I denounce this move by China. Not because they are the 'other team', but because censorship is wrong, period. I also denounce those little NSA rooms at telecoms in the USA, because censorship is wrong.
I'm motivated by justice, not geo political team sport. How about you?
I've seen this argument a lot, and it is terrible. It goes like this:
"We expect foreign businesses to follow our rules. Therefore we can't criticize anyone else's rules."
I hope the flaw is apparent. We ALWAYS have the right to complain about nasty rules -- including our own nasty rules! That's right, if we force foreign businesses to do awful things then we SHOULD be criticized for it. Likewise, we have the right and duty to call out other countries when they pull this stuff.
http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_299.pdf
THEME 16: COMMUNICATIONS
AND MEDIA SERVICES
Concept & Communication
The Beijing communications strategy is based on
a desire to provide greater opportunities for more
people to share the excitement of the Olympic
Games.
It was confirmed to the Commission that there
will be no restrictions on media reporting and
movement of journalists up to and including
the Olympic Games.
If there is one thing that reporters really don't like it is having their ability to speak and report freely curtailed. You can bet your bottom dollar that if China follows through with this policy then they will be called out on it by western journalists during the games and reminded of their previous assurances. The 2008 Beijing Olympics are shaping up to be the most politically charged games in a generation, even the Moscow games of 1980 and the subsequent Soviet boycott of the Los Angeles games in 1984 did not draw as much world wide attention and controversy as the upcoming Beijing games have. The Chinese are proving to the world once again that they have a tin ear for international public relations with their handling of the torch relay and the Tibet issue.
Given that the very act of a torch relay (not the use of the Torch itself, but the relay) came about as Nazi propaganda for the 1936 Olympics, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that the political protests surrounding this year's relay are a "disgrace." I think that the athletes should be able to compete all they want, free of political pull, but the relay is historically a political act.