Slashdot Mirror
IOC Admits Internet Censorship Deal With China
Dave writes "BEIJING (Reuters) — Some International Olympic Committee officials cut a deal to let China block sensitive websites despite promises of unrestricted access, a senior IOC official admitted on Wednesday.
Persistent pollution fears and China's concerns about security in Tibet also remained problems for organizers nine days before the Games begin.
China had committed to providing media with the same freedom to report on the Games as they enjoyed at previous Olympics, but journalists have this week complained of finding access to sites deemed sensitive to its communist leadership blocked.
'I regret that it now appears BOCOG has announced that there will be limitations on website access during Games time,' IOC press chief Kevan Gosper said, referring to Beijing's Olympic organizers.
'I also now understand that some IOC officials negotiated with the Chinese that some sensitive sites would be blocked on the basis they were not considered Games related,' he said." But yet somehow the mainstream media will ignore this because the Olympics are patriotic or something.
[sarcastic]Yeah, because Reuters is not at all associated with the mainstream media.[/sarcastic]
The only thing that would make a difference is if mainstream media, including NBC, threatened to boycott coverage of the Olympics, not just bitch and moan about Chinese censorship. The Chinese government would hop to right quick if their biggest PR stunt since the rise of Communism was going to get no coverage in the foreign media.
But it's not the "patriotic" element that will keep print and broadcast media chugging along. It's the money many press/media outlets have already invested in getting over there and positioning their people to get the best coverage. NBC Sports would continue Olympic coverage even if Chinese soldiers were making a public show of bludgeoning dissidents to death in the street. NBC News and Brian Williams would express shock and outrage, but you'd have someone from GE holding a gun to Bob Costas' head if necessary to keep him from walking off the air in disgust.
And if Costas did walk off, you'd have some wannabe ready and willing to fill in for him, thinking this was his/her big break.
The Olympics are a HUGE revenue source for a lot of people, and as we've seen quite often, economics will trump ethics 9 times in 10.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
Giving China the Olympic games will go down as either an unconscionable endorsement of their prison state, or as an indictment of the same.
Anything and everything that can be done to undermine and destroy the police state that rules China should be done.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
This shouldn't really surprise anyone. Beijing has been way too tight-fisted about internet control to suddenly decide that everything is now fair game. I'm actually amazed they allowed as much as they did. Oh well, if you need to see Amnesty International then maybe encrypt your traffic or use a VPN.
Boycott the 2008 Olympics.
Everything i hear about the Olympics in China make me want nothing to do with it.
I'm boycotting it and wont watch any of the events.
MABASPLOOM!
The eternal divide remains: make money, or do what is perceived as "right"?
The Olympics is going to be a gigantic spectacle, a media event and a profit center, whether it's under a "freedom"-loving liberal democracy, or totalitarian propaganda staged in stadiums built on heaps of dead dissidents.
A consumer boycott might unite 1% of the citizens of the United States, most of whom are east coast liberals who weren't going to watch it anyway (sports are for blue collar people), and cost the organizers enough to make them think differently -- but the next Olympics isn't in China anyway, and by the time another "oppressive" (not "freedom"-loving) state hosts the Olympics, the decision-makers will be retired or promoted to different positions.
So in short, fold your arms and do nothing. There's nothing you can do.
Anti-Globalism, Traditionalism, and FreeBSD.
Every site deemed sensitive to China's communist leadership should add something about the Olympics on their website to become "Games related".
Right. And as a Div 1 collegiate athlete, I think that people should have a respect for the Olympics because of the athletes, not for any "patriotic" reason.
Never politicize the Olympics! It is very sad to think of the times when the Olympics have been canceled for political reasons. If I had made it to the Olympics, I wouldn't care how communist my competitors may or may not be. Since I didn't make it, I sure want to be able to watch on TV. Political battles are for another time, another place, and it's not like we don't already have enough of that other time/other place.
I think they mean well, but they often make up their minds based on what the situation is, before getting any of the facts. And often they rely on few sources that present a very black and white biased view, when the real situation is shades of gray.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Really, this only appears to be an issue if you are a reporter (and perhaps athelete and/or random attendee). So, you show up at your hotel or Dorm, or whatever, and you get the same censored internet that every Chinese national gets. Do you expect all the rules to be lifted because you are special? Wouldn't it be hypocritical to give you unfettered access to the internet while the citizens do not? It would be an administrative headache and to what end? If you don't like it, fly home and use your own damn ISP.
I'm not defending the filtering of the internet, but don't really understand why guests to the country would/should be treated differently... I would guess that the Falun Gong and Amnesty International are blocked for Chinese nationals too.
Which they won't do, because it would destroy them to. Let's face it, we've replaced a military cold war with an economic one; where the competing powers now hold the capacity to destroy each other's economies, but only at the cost of their own. It's the MAD doctrine of the 21st century.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The IOC spokesperson said one of the blocked sites belonged to Faulun Gong. "I would remind you that Falun Gong is an evil, fake religion which has been banned by the Chinese government."
So its OK, then. I'm just surprised that the IOC has an official position on Faulun Gong. What other religions does it characterize officially? What does the IOC think about Scientology? Islam? Would they agree that Luther was holier than St. Augustine? Who would do better at the 100m freestyle, Jesus or Mohammad? Could the Hindu pantheon stand a chance against the Greek pantheon at water polo?
Since the IOC brought it up, they should at least provide reporters with the IOC's own official list of religions its OK to block. This should be no problem as the IOC is really thorough when it comes to official lists.
The nations retail goods are so tied up in China right now that if we pissed them off, all they would have to do is squeeze the tube a little to bring the whole world to its knees.
If the slave kills the master, the slave starves to death.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
So, he knew a guy who had a company that had one big financial issue, and did 5 hours of work for him in the 6 years he was in office. And this suddenly makes him a huge criminal?
Borderline illegal is the way of saying "it is legal, but I don't like it"
Actual quote from the article: Watch Burns describe how Obama used the rules to his advantage
Real fair and unbiased. Really...
So he went out there and checked to make sure that their signitures on the ballots were taken in a legal method? This is somehow "dirty" or "underhanded"? Granted, one guy didn't get to run because he was 67 signitures away from having his required number, but then it was his fault for not double checking to make sure he was following the law. I have no problem with a potential president who wants rule by law.
How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?
"How does that make him dirtier than a guy who takes openhanded bribes and hides them in his freezer?"
Why aren't you upset that he's dirty in the first place, regardless of whether he's "dirtier" than anyone else?
The Chinese government would hop to right quick if their biggest PR stunt since the rise of Communism was going to get no coverage in the foreign media.
Not in the way you'd think. The massive attention they've been getting has apparently resulted in a surge of patriotism and xenophobia. We're seen as goodie-twoshoe, meddling complainers by many Chinese...and they're especially sensitive to criticism.
The Chinese government (and IOC) response would be to accuse said agencies of "politicizing The Games". Media would never do it anyway- the purpose of TV is to provide programming to attract eyeballs for advertisers. Advertisers have already signed contracts and paid money for ad space- and networks have already signed contracts and paid money for broadcast rights. A boycott would might not bankrupt them, but it would be an enormous financial blow.
Please help metamoderate.
You sound well-intentioned an all, but honestly, I don't think you understand how copyright lawsuits work. /. is just a forum, and it can't police what everyone posts. If someone posts a copyright-violating post, then the copyright owner can ask /. to take it down, but there's no way they can skip that request step and sue (and win) a big judgment. It's just not going to happen.
/. getting sued, or even getting a takedown notice? I think you're overreacting, and bordering on paranoid.
As you said, this happens here all the time and has for more than a decade. Have you ever heard of
everything in moderation
For a few weeks every four years, we get to pretend that all the problems of the world are nothing more than a few games between athletes, interspersed with advertisements for male enhancement and foot cream.
It makes him just as dirty. And you should, as the above responder mentions, instead be asking the question: why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
I don't know - maybe because it reminds them of FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, and Clinton, to name a few from the last hundred years? I'm not saying the Republicans are angels by any stretch when it comes to campaign shenanigans - but then they aren't the ones trying to claim the moral high ground, generally.
> why are the democrats running a guy this dirty?
A better question is how you got the idea that a major political party of a large country is going to be able to find and select an experienced, electable candidate who isn't dirty?
Personally, I find it safest to assume that anyone willingly participating in national level politics is probably a scumbag.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Anyone able to get themselves elected president should on no account be allowed to have the job.
While I heartily agree - seriously, we can't do better than Obama or McCain? I mean shit, I wouldn't trust either of them to be able to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, much less actual policy.
On the other hand, it's interesting watching the mod scores go up and down as the obamabots desperately try to downmod anything that speaks a bit of truth about their candidate.
Of course. I should have uncritically accepted the allegations without proof. And my initial failure was compounded by critically examining the evidence presented and finding it wanting.
Ha. Well, then I guess there's no point in talking about it. You're so invested in thinking Obama a shady slimebag, you'll grasp at the thinnest of evidence as ironclad proof.
Reading this thread, I am amazed (as I often am) at the naivete of the Slashdot crowd. But then, what do you expect from folks who think that a handful of geeks refusing to patronize the big record companies is going to bring the RIAA to their knees?
The IOC should ban China's team from participating? Yeah, that's gonna work. And China's going to lay right down and take it, huh? They will simply counter-threaten to shut the games down entirely. Beijing holds most of the cards here.
Withdraw the U.S. team in protest? Yeah, that worked real well in Moscow, and look how it changed the world. All that does is penalize the athletes who have worked hard for years to get where they are, and effectively make them disposable pawns in a political chess game.
The best are the folks who say that we should not watch the Olympics in protest. Sure. That will make about a 0.00000000000000000000000001% dent in the Nielsens. Utterly useless. Hey, I disagree strongly with some of the NCAA's policies -- does that mean I should protest by not watching my alma mater's football games on TV?
No one with half a brain didn't see this coming. In fact, I think the IOC and pretty much everyone else associated with the Games expected it. Considering all the ways in which Beijing could fuck up the Olympics, I think the repercussions of journalists not being able to reach websites about Falun Gong or Tiennammen Square during a sporting event is not too bitter of a pill to swallow. Is this censorship a breach of what China agreed to? Absolutely. Is it worth creating a political brouhaha and potentially screwing the Olympics over? Absolutely not.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Amazing how cheaply freedom of speech, democracy, heck even a country! can be purchased, eh?
I'm not saying the Republicans are angels by any stretch when it comes to campaign shenanigans - but then they aren't the ones trying to claim the moral high ground, generally.
Who are you kidding? Both sides ALWAYS try to claim the moral high ground. If they can't, then they try to knock the other side off the high ground. Neither side is any cleaner than the other. People just tend to pick a side and then turn a blind eye to that side's dirty dealing while demonizing the other side. I think that makes them feel that there is at least a good side out there. Otherwise they'd have to face the truth: powerful people don't get that way by following the rules. They get that way by bending and breaking the rules any way they can get away with, and covering their tracks as best they can. Then they have plausible deniability and the people on "their side" will defend them and demonize the other guy.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually, you might be interested in real studies on the matter. Here's one from UCLA (hardly a right-wing place), which determines that drudge, fox news, etc are actually pretty damn even and not as right-wing as you claim, while the "traditional" media lean FAR left.
Well, that seems to depend on your reference point. Americans have a very wide range of media sources to get their news from, and they can choose to change the news sources they consume anytime they like. In comparison they've got an entrenched two party political system you can only change every four years. (And believe me, from an outsider's perspective it's sometimes extremely difficult to tell your two parties apart)
Both the average political leaning of your media and your elected representatives present choices your population has made. I'd argue that they are far more free in scope to choose when it comes to the media and so that better represents their collective will than your elected politicians do. The disparity is not that your media is to the left of your population, it's that your politics is to the right.
The IOC is corrupt to the core. They routinely award the games to whoever comes up with the biggest bag of money. It is one of the most corrupt organizations in the modern era.
I laugh at the paranoids in the US who see "one world government" as a threat at every turn. The United Nations IMO is one of the great achievments of the 20th century, imperfect as it may be. The International Olympics Committee, on the other hand, should not be a model for anything. It should be called what it is: a greedy self-serving bunch of criminals.
"You mean like Jimmy Carter? Obama is dangerously close to him both in policies and experience level. And you remember the damage Carter did to us in just four years."
Damage?
Oh, you mean by correctly predicting the energy crisis and proposing serious workable solutions, anticipating Peak Oil by three decades?
And then getting run out of town for his honesty and far-sightedness?
That kind of damage?
You could use a lot more Jimmy Carters, and if Obama is a tenth of the US President he was, you folks will be counting yourself lucky.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Nobody cares about you