Slashdot Mirror
Free Tools To Evade China's Web Censorship
narramissic writes "The Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIFC) offers a set of free tools that can be used to circumvent Chinese Internet censorship. The group claims approximately 1 million people in China use its tools to access the Internet. And, says Tao Wang, director of operations for GIFC, 'it's a very good time to remind Western reporters that there are such tools.'"
If the websense software on my workplace computer can block this site, I'm pretty sure the Chinese government can too.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"It's a very good time remind Western reporters that there are such tools," said Tao Wang
I don't know. You get a couple hundred (or thousand) reporters getting censored while reporting on a very high-profile event? I think it would do more to call attention to China's policies. They'll talk for months about how hard it was for them to do their jobs and the freedoms they had to live without. If they use these tools, they'll go home afterward and forget all about the fact that they needed them at all.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I think that the major news outlet will play nice during the Olympics, reporting only State-approved news and events. However, when the Olympics are over and everyone goes home (free from the clutches of the Chinese government and their censorship), then the real reporting on China whill begin.
Working around the censors will be the quickest way to be detained in China for a long time.
I predict insightful moderated posts about how people are going to be executed or "disappeared" for downloading some software, by people who have never left their own country before.
Yes there are many technical ways of circumventing the Chinese firewall or any other net censorship. The real issue here is that the vast majority won't use them because they can't be bothered, leading to widespread ignorance about issues that really need to be addressed.
The reason censorship works so well is because people are generally lazy, regardless of country or race and don't go hunting for information that isn't spoon fed to them.
So to summarize, the definition of success when it comes to censorship isn't that they stopped 100% of information getting though, but that they stopped it a little, combined with a disproportionate amount of easily digested propaganda leading to an impenetrable wall of ignorance that no little circumvention tools are going to help.
Not that they don't deserve to have access to everything, but it's their regulation and should be somehow respected as the rules and regulations of other countries. The US has a drug policy that the Netherlands would find intolerant, that doesn't give them any rights of providing tools to the people in the US to easily have access to drugs while in the US
Why not? Especially considering that our drug laws may well be unconstitutional, meaning the law is illegal. They had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol, why did they not have to amend it to outlaw other drugs?
Whether or not drug laws are constitutional, someone in the Netherlands is not under US law. It might be illegal for me to recieve tools to obtain drugs from someone in the Netherlands, but it would NOT be illegal fro him to provide them. He has every right to supply me with anything his country's laws allow, and I have every right to subvert Chinese law.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
also, the American side is a user driven firewall, not a govt imposed on.
Czech dissident writer Zdenek Urbanek once said...
In one respect, we are luckier than you in the free west, because we have learnt to read between the lines, and you believe you have no need; but you do.
George Orwell recognized that western media operates on self-censorship way back in the 40s. He wrote a preface to Animal farm all about it, but the preface itself was censored and never published. Amongst other things, he said...
The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. ... [Things are] kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact
For example, if you read the BBC online, you probably know that Hugo Chavez shook the Spanish King's hand recently after their previous spat. Hardly Earth shattering news. Yet you probably won't be aware that Colombian President Alavaro Uribe is under investigation for possible involvement in the planning of a massacre by right wing paramilitaries. The general trend is that bad stories about allies are either ignored or only reported in passing, whereas those about official enemies such as Chavez are accentuated and repeated ad infinitum.
Anyone interested in censorship in the western media should read "Manufacturing Consent" by Hermann and Chomsky, or watch the documentary on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wksCW3ooJ5A