Slashdot Mirror
Hacker Uncovers Chinese Olympic Fraud
SkeptOlympics writes "A new chapter in the ongoing controversy surrounding China's women's gymnastics team opened today, as search engine hacker stryde.hax found surviving copies of official registration documents issued by China's General Administration of Sport of China. The incriminating documents, expunged by censors from the official site and from Google's document cache, still appear in the document translation cache of Chinese search giant Baidu, here (1) and here (2), showing the age of one of China's gold medal winning gymnasts to be 14 instead of 16, the minimum age for competition presented on her government-issued passport. Now that official government documentation is available, how long will the IOC be able to keep a lid on this scandal?" I imagine the answer is "Forever."
China has already taken their official stance. They just don't care about the rules and don't care what other people think about it.
Why is there a minimum age to begin with? I think if a 14 year old can compete at the level of those a few years older, she should be allowed to. Is the age requirement only in gymnastics? Wasn't Michael Phelps 15 in his first Olympics in 2000?
The IOC are making themselves look pretty scummy by association at the moment.
If it makes you feel better, the IOC has always been scummy.
Who didn't assume the Chinese would "cheat to win" at least a few times in this Olympics? They want to dazzle the world and win as many medals as possible. One has to assume they'll resort to unsavory tactics as long as plausible deniability exists.
On another Olympics note, does anyone else think there have been an unusually high number of errors in the technical events this year? Perhaps I just wasn't watching that closely in previous years, but I thought there have been an inordinate number of falls (off balance beams), poor landings and other substantial technical failures by the competitors. We've had outstanding performances by the likes of Phelps and Bolt, but otherwise there's been a lot of sucking by these elite athletes.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
That doesn't mean that Google modified the cache, it just means that the cached version has been modified.
Recall that Microsoft Office applications do not always remove deleted data, and Google's search engine operates on the raw data in a file (which means that Google will return search results that seem less than obvious if you just look at a rendered copy of the file... something search engine spammers find handy). That means if someone in China deleted that row from the spreadsheet, it would still show up in Google's search.
No. Everyone with a TV or radio knows that Phelps won 8 medals, when the next season of Stuck-On-An-Island-With-A-Film-Crew starts, and how the evil gas companies are making gazillions of dollars at our expense.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Speaking narrowly to the issue of rule-making and rule-enforcement in general, and ignoring he question of the truth of the specific allegations in this specific case:
Any rule not applied fairly is a risk to equal competition. Just because you don't know whether a rule introduces a bias on the outcome does not mean that it doesn't.
For example, let's suppose some country (any country) did have an athlete participating in an event contrary to some rule. It doesn't matter if it's age or drugs or taste in music. If some number of countries select from their entire population and others select from only the people in the approved group, then whether or not any given country was able to show its most competitive face is purely a question of whether the excluded group contains the most competitive person.
Let's suppose the games are closed to anyone who likes hip hop music, for example. Why might it matter if some hypothetical Foozania were to field a swimmer who secretly likes hip hop music when the other countries voluntarily held back? Absent Michael Phelps (we all know from US airtime allotments that there are not really any other swimmers of note in the US), who would be voluntarily withheld because of his professed like of hip hop, the Foozanian swimmer's scores might seem very good. By your reasoning, which seems to amount to absence of competition, he deserves his medal fair and square, right? But if the absence of competition can be caused by uneven application of rules, that's where the problem comes.
But beyond this, there is also a human rights question: Are there sports in which people are pressured at a younger and younger age to get into the sport, before they are ready to make a free choice? Are there sports in which the toll the sport takes on the athlete is damaging before a certain age? These are complex questions of ethics that it seems fair for the Olympic committee to at least consider, so you can understand why there might be such rules. And once there are such rules, my examples above hopefully show why they must be applied fairly in order for the Olympics to mean anything at all.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Where's the hacking part come in? Give him credit for his search and chinese language skills but hacking?
I don't have to admit that. The left-wing spite for Cheney and his faithful VP Bush is pretty well-deserved and not hard to understand -- we're now fighting two wars in the Middle East, one of which should have ended long ago and the other of which shouldn't have started. The American dollar is weaker than American beer. One after another Constitutional bound has been overstepped and ignored. I can't imagine an administration doing much worse. (It is important to note that Bush/Cheney does not represent ANY of the best traditional qualities of the Republican party. They aren't Republicans, they're Neocons. Might as well be a party of its own.)
On the other side, I live in Massachusetts, bluest of the blue states, and I don't know anyone who actually thinks Obama is gonna march us into the promised land. I support him because his stated ideas are mostly compatible with mine, and I believe him to be quite politically unconnected when compared with McCain and Hillary. The old political network, on both sides of the aisle, has failed me. I want it gone. Obama represents my best chance of that.
Cretin - a powerful and flexible CD reencoder
"People in many western countries have an expectation that governments and businesses behave in a mostly honorable manner."
Sorry, I have no such expectation. I expect government will behave in accordance with the will of the corporations who got the politicians elected and who pay them good money. I expect that *every* politician is corrupt until proven innocent
The US for instance is currently ruled by representatives of Big Oil and private military corporations that are sucking trillions out of the hands of the US taxpayers. With that kind of money available its no wonder there is corruption abounding. When the Iraq war winds up, you can expect another one to follow because the companies making all that money at the moment will not be likely to stand for a peace. Its too good a racket
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Actually, I don't know if there's necessarily a difference of scale. It might be, but it's not really necessary.
See, I don't know much about China, but at least in the USSR the age of mass deportations and millions of people in Gulag ended with Stalin. Then it evolved in something cheaper, more subtle and more efficient: the idea that anything you say _might_ be recorded somewhere and _might_ be used against you. Not even necessarily by a visit of the secret police. Sure, it _could_ be the secret police too, but maybe it'll be something else. Maybe you'll never fly out of the USSR ever again, because you can't be trusted to come back. Maybe you'll never get a job past a certain level. Maybe it'll bite you in the arse in some other way. Or maybe noone wrote that in your dossier after all. But you don't know.
And you don't know who's spying and reporting on you. Maybe comrade Piotr is really rabidly against the government and you could start building a resistance together. But maybe he's an agent provocateur.
They actually had very few political prisoners past a point. The people held themselves in line admirably, given that Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
I wouldn't be surprised if they actually had less political prisoners than the USA has in gitmo. The actual gulag was more kept as a reminder of what _could_ happen if you really cross the line too far, than as something to be used immediately and lots. Sorta like how the nukes are more for threat value, than actually used in wars.
And I find that the USA had been taking an eerily similar direction during the Bush years. The whole surveillance mania, and the repeated leaks about what else they monitor and try to connect (including laughable stuff like data-mining the grocery purchases for people who buy arab food), it's like they actually _wanted_ people to get the idea that someone's watching and they better behave. Even some of the few terrorism trials, it's like they chose the most laughable and/or most suspiciously looking like entrapment. It almost begs thinking that the moral is, beware of who's asking you dubious stuff, he might be an agent provocateur.
Now I'm not saying it's some deliberate conspiracy to leak them. Probably more like not caring what gets leaked. Give enough minions orders to spy left and right, and you can pretty much count on it that some of them will botch it or run to the press. Which can actually be good if that's the message you actually want to give to your population: watch it, we've got our eyes on all y'all.
Look at the other details about the USSR in that list. Flight restrictions for people they don't like? Check. Done in the USA too. Your pool of available jobs might depend on how much of an politically loyal you make yourself seen as? Check. The Bushies politicized half the government departments. Etc.
Gitmo and torture kept as the ultimate stick, where you probably won't land, but you _might_ if you're really undesirable? Check. Same role as the Gulag had post-Stalin.
Not saying that the USA is a perfect equivalent to the USSR dictatorship... yet. But it looks to me like they've been working real hard to push it in that direction. If given more time, I don't doubt that it would have got a lot worse eventually.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
What two wars are we fighting? I don't see any declared hostility with any nation
Are you serious? Are you trying to imply that because there hasn't been a technical, formal declaration incorporating the word war that we're supposed to believe you have no awareness of the War in Afghanistan or the War in Iraq?
I agree there is far too much devisiveness and name calling when it comes to the 2 "sides", but to pretend there aren't any wars going on is just...well...stupid.
Nice argument but a rule is a rule. If you are going to commit fraud in order to get your way, and possibly create an uneven playing field while doing so, then you should suffer the penalty, period. There's nothing meaningless about this argument. Having kids compete at an Olympic level before they've even had a chance to properly form emotionally is certainly not a good thing. If you want to participate you participate under the same rules as everyone else and the message that needs to be made clear is that committing fraud to do so is not going to be tolerated. Has nothing to do with beliefs or western "mores". If they want it changed they can make a proposal and have it approved or not, end of story.
I'll give you the whole Thoreau Civil Disobedience thing. I'm pretty much 100% on board there. thats fine for important social and governmental issues. Here is where we diverge. Gymnastics is a sport. Sports have rules. Those rules are for everyone. Don't like the rules, don't play. Do you think the rules of baseball are dumb? Go play cricket. Lots of sports periodically change or tweak the rules. It's not new. If you are caught cheating, then pay the fine, and play by the rules. Otherwise, you might as well go play Calvinball.
At this point, it seems overwhelmingly apparent that the Olympics is simply big business. In your article, the IOC states:
'"My clients, the sponsors and broadcasters are happy with the positive view that the Olympics is about sport and the focus is quite rightly on that," said the IOC's marketing director Timo Lumme.' Yes, that is who their clients are.
I saw a number being tossed around of $1 billion that NBC paid for exclusive broadcast rights. Visa paid hundreds of millions for exclusive credit card rights, to the detriment of the people that actually attend the games, and find they can't use their credit cards.
According to Wikipedia, they made 4 billion from the last Olympics, and they distribute the money throughout the Olympic Movement. As best as I can tell from Google, these are all non-profits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Olympic_Committee#Olympic_marketingAs
My question then is: Where is all the money going? 4 billion dollars is a lot to be spending just on administration, especially when the host countries are the ones paying for infrastructure.
It just doesn't seem to make any sense. It can't all be going to hookers and blow...can it?
Actually we have the age limit because a 12 year old girl has a size to strength ratio that is superior to that of a 16 year old girl. If you saw those Chinese girls you'd know what I am talking about. Compare the bodies of Shawn Johnson or Alicia Sacramone to He Kexin or Yang Yilin. There is no comparison.
Amen. +5 insightful (where the fuck are my mod points??)
The thing to debate - in this particular instance - is not the relative 'goodness' or 'badness' of the 16 year old rule, although I do agree with it on a personal level. The fact is that the IOC has the rule, China knew they had the rule going in, they broke the rule, they need to get slapped upside the head.
The girls did a great job and all, but you don't argue the merits of a traffic law while you're driving down the interstate - you go in front of a lawmaker/makers and debate it.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
[citation needed]
Well, its almost impossible to count the ways that statement is false. For one thing, the concept of honorable can be very different in different places. It reminds me of the Catholic Church's reaction to priest pedophilia scandals. Canon law enjoins the hierarchy against doing anything that would bring the Church into disrepute, so of course that meant they had to cover it up. In case you didn't notice, that was sarcastic. It takes a special kind of blindness to interpret what would otherwise be a useful rule in such a damaging way.
Same thing here. The Chinese authorities used various kinds of trickery in the opening ceremonies. One you might not have heard of is the children representing 55 ethnic minority groups were all Han (Chinese) children dressed up in ethnic costumes. The constant theme of all these various stories is this: they treat keeping up appearances as a critical matter of national prestige, almost national security.
Now, let's move off the culturally relative topic of honor onto firmer ground of administration. The problem with any system in which the bureaucracies are allowed to manage appearances is that the people in those bureaucracies lose their capacity to recognize irony. Bureaucracies are good at handling complexity, but terrible at subtlety. Too many people taking their cues from other people just like them. Too much groupthink. Any reasonably clever individual would have foreseen that the torch relay business was asking for trouble, and that acting surprised and offended about the inevitable protests would play into the hands of the protesters. If you're a tough guy, when somebody kicks you in the groin, you're supposed to ... raise one eyebrow, or laugh it off or something like that. You don't dance around holding your crotch in one hand and pointing an accusing finger with another and shout "unfair!" That tells everyone the protestors hit you in a weak spot, so if you aren't prepared to take it with a grin, you don't offer them the opportunity.
Any reasonably clever individual could figure out that trying to look even better than you could possibly be during the opening ceremonies would end up with people questioning even the bona fide amazing things you do.
Anybody with enough brains to be a top level government planner could figure out that hanging so much national pride and prestige on something like this, and doing it so transparently, is as good as hanging a sign on your national back saying "Kick me!" But you take all those excellent brains, and you embed them in a bureaucracy nobody's allowed to question, that is hermetically sealed from independent thought and touchy about criticism, and those individually excellent brains end up trudging along together, stuck in the groove of groupthink.
The Olympics might have been everything China dreamed for them to be, if the government had grasped one fundamental and ironic fact: you gain national prestige in something like this by doing really well while acting as if it wasn't important at all. The jingoistic, quasi-religious, neopagan ceremony of the Olympics is a trap. The more you act like this is supposed to be proof of national superiority or virility or something, the less you are measured by what you achieve. People start watching for how far you fall short of what you pretend to be.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I was thinking more of articles like this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24468-2005Feb14.html I read a great article on the subject a few weeks ago, that detailed how much of the several trillion dollars have been sunk into Iraq have been scammed by big military contractors, but alas I can't find it again. If I recall correctly it was estimated at around 20% of those trillions - so billions of dollars. I could easily be wrong though as I don't have the article to hand and one tends to inflate values in memory. Heres another article as well: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050930/news_lz1e30cray.html And another: http://www.propublica.org/scandal/military-contractor-abuse/ Companies like Haliburton and Blackwater (and dozens more) are making money hand over fist, screwing the US public out of those dollars, and they have a strong lobby support and friends in government (who will no doubt retire as members of the BOD for these companies by way of thanks). Its a *huge* scam, and the US public are the victims in this. That's why you are at war in Iraq currently. Its also why i expect that if you pull out of Iraq, you will end up somewhere else, because the money has to keep rolling into the hands of these companies. You may think your Medicare system and other social programs are eating up tons of cash, and undoubtedly they are - but at least they improve the lives of American citizens. Contracts to Haliburton and other similar companies merely line the pockets of their corporate owners. The money currently being doled out in plastic wrapped bundles of $100k each could be spent to decrease the cost of the medical system, create jobs for those who are unemployed, start new companies that produce useful services for US citizens at home etc, rather than being spent on wasteful contract services (like paying a company 15m a month to guard flights for a month where no such flights landed etc).
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
it's sad that people can be so utterly ignorant of the realities of this world that they believe George Bush is the epitome of evil.
You're absolutely right. Bush is not the epitome of evil.
Aside from getting elected president, I doubt Bush has ever been better than a C+ at much of anything. George Bush is the C+ of evil. The the C+ of lie, cheat and steal. This guy gets a hold of Global Power... and with his C+ of evil all he manages to do is manufacture a small war in a bumfuck country, torture a small handful of people, and swell the ranks of terrorist groups across the globe. Bush hasn't even nuked a city. Nuking a city would rate him at least a B+. Unleashing a genetically engineered racially-targeted plague would get him a solid A+ of evil. Or better yet a racially-targeted plague that also only kills males, so that the women can be spared and "rescued" and impregnated to raise half-white properly Christian babies. THAT would earn him the title Epitome of Evil.
Yep. Bush is not the epitome of evil. Bush is the C+ of evil.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
"If you want to find the recipients of the largess of our bloated federal budget start and end with the entitlement programs.""
There's only one problem with this, but it's huge. The use of the term "entitlement programs" is a little misleading. A better term may be "conscience leading" or "moral corrections". Many with the philosophies that you spew seem not to understand that we all, in this country especially, do not start or end on equal footing when quality of life, or the means to gain it is concerned. These "entitlement" programs are merely the moral outcome of this.
The military-industrial complex has the opposite effect. Remember, while "entitlement programs" do require much of our resources, and rightfully so IMO, the amount we spend on far more frivolous things (yes, I said frivolous) that merely end up making the rich and powerful entities richer and more powerful, would be much more wisely spent on many other things. For example, and we'll just use the Iraq war spending and just my state (Illinois) for an example. We could have furnished 48 million homes with renewable energy alternatives. Again, this is just with the money spent for ILLINOIS. The numbers are just astounding. 48,000 more teachers, just in Illinois, just with Illinois' portion of the money spent in Iraq. 14 million more people with health care, just in this state, etc...
So, while you may have a point, I think it's misleading. Redirecting what we spend on these things would have had a MUCH more profound effect on the quality of this country and it's moral standing in the world, which by proxy, makes us safer, happier and richer. The problem is that those that hold the vast majority of power/money in the country will do anything they can to keep the status quo. The current policies in this country promote it (you can start with the Reagan admin). I just think some of us would rather have that changed, than to stop "entitlement programs".
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin