Slashdot Mirror


China Slams Clinton's Call For Internet Freedom

CWmike writes "China on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-China relations. Clinton's speech and China's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in China by ending censorship of its Chinese search engine. Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether. On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked, she said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China.' China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google."

235 comments

  1. Color me skeptical by Third+Position · · Score: 4, Informative

    Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether.

    Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

    --
    American Third Position
    Finally, a real choice!
    1. Re:Color me skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the Chinese government decides to let Google keep their business license whilst allowing an uncensored search engine ... wouldn't you want them to stay?

    2. Re:Color me skeptical by kdemetter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".

      I think that say enough about China : calling freedom "so-called" , and claiming that there is such a thing as "unreasonable criticism" .
      As far as i know, criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.

      Anyway , i'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it.

    3. Re:Color me skeptical by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd agree with one of the things China says here...

      When I read the quote,

      stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China.' China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said

      I translate as, "Stop talking about censorship; this is really about hacking, and that's illegal here."

      Up until the "...and that's illegal here" bit, I think they have a point.

      China hacked Google computers; they're apparently involved in widespread government-sanctioned industrial espionage --- and somehow the dialogue has shifted to be about censorship? They're different issues.

      If anything, I think that the hacking incidents are indisputably worse -- you can argue about what governments can or should do to control the spread of information inside a country, but you can't argue that the hacking is ok -- so it strikes me as strange that the Americans would want to change the subject. If they'd stuck to the hacking they'd have a stronger argument.

      Not that I support the censorship either; it'd be nice if Chinese people could access, say, Wikipedia. But this really is a separate issue.

    4. Re:Color me skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you expect from that piece of shit Country. Fuck China.

    5. Re:Color me skeptical by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      >> "and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".

      No, I think they mean that western governments are not the most fervent defenders of Internet freedom (throttling, wiretapping, ACTA etc.)

      I wonder if we westerners realize were being monitored and censored the same that Chinese people when we point the Chinese censorship.

      Just because we can have porn and irrelevant on-line stuff so we don't care too much, and were not getting shot by going to 4chan.

      Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?

    6. Re:Color me skeptical by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Okay, ... wiretapping ... maybe .... if used totally, totally out of place.

      ACTA ... again maybe .... maybe ... not at the moment, certainly, but I can understand some trepidation.

      And then ... throttling ? WTF ? You're equating slightly slowing down your download of the latest fake britney spears porn with the violent censorship that the Chinese state is inflicting on it's citizens ? Why don't you call AT&T the Nazi SS ?

      Let's keep some perspective here. This is not the way forward.

    7. Re:Color me skeptical by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Or do you really think you can find ANY book written in the world on Amazon?

      On Amazon , no . But on the internet , yes.

  2. Google and business by faragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Google, because etics, is willing to lose such market as China, could get a huge credibility and respect increase (kudos, Google). Unfortunately, I'm skeptical about it.

    1. Re:Google and business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we continue to pretend we want freedom of speech for China and other places where goods and services are very cheap?

    2. Re:Google and business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you like the slave labor, but we'd all be better off without it. Lazy ass

    3. Re:Google and business by Xeno+man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ethics may be a part of it but time and money will be a larger part of it. If you need to have an entire office of people to run China's version of Google, spending man hours on complying with every government request and policy and continually undoing what Google does (it finds stuff), there comes a point when it's just not worth the effort. Then you find out that the government that you have been bending over backwards for just to please enough to allow you to do business hacks your machines just to get more of what they want may have been the final straw. It may be easier to just set the auto reply for any email from China to "fuck off" and go back to running business in the rest of the world.

    4. Re:Google and business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese market is actually small. 150e6 vs. 6e9 US market
       

    5. Re:Google and business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's unfortunate about being skeptical about it? ;)

  3. Sick and Tired of Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google is not the only organization that is sick and tired of China's hacking and industrial espionage. After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China, it really sucks that we cannot just cut them off the Internet. If they attached anywhere near the interest in stopping the hacking that they did in prosecuting the people who dealt in porn, the problem would stop overnight. They supposedly have the most sophisticated government firewall in the world, but they cannot spot and stop these continual hacking attempts? Obviously the Chinese government is behind this hacking activity.

    1. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by x2A · · Score: 3, Funny

      Originating from China... so that narrows it down to what, one sixth of the worlds population? Can you see any problem with your argument?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Most of that one-sixth of the worlds population cannot read the only language I can read/write in. I think it's less of a deal than you might think.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by x2A · · Score: 1

      Well that shifts it away from the one sixth figure... but as much of the rest of the world can't either, that shifts it back.

      Attacks I deal with tend to come out of the middle east, but to be fair, there's a high chance it's coming from someone with a compromised machine just proxying the attack, so I try not to hold it against the country of origin. I've been at the other end of that once, net cut off 'n stuff, tho my machine wasn't compromised, they just hadn't thought about the fact that having an IP address on something doesn't necessarily mean it actually came from there (this was 10 years ago, when it didn't mean that a lot more than it doesn't mean it today).

      Still, doesn't mean you can cut off a country home to a sixth of the worlds population, even if some of them are responsible for the attacks you get. If you're going to start down that road, just unplug your system from the internet... that's where 100% of them come from!!!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After seeing in my logs hundreds of hacking attempts a day that originate in China, it really sucks that we cannot just cut them off the Internet.

      I manage quite a few servers who target users in a non-English speaking EU country. I eventually put a -j DROP on China. That reduced hacking attempts, spam and other garbage by 90%. It's not that anyone from China understands the language anyway. I keep hearing about this firewall they supposedly have, it seems a bit strange that it seems to stop human rights activists yet it lets a flood of garbage through. There may be actual users in China who want to browse the web, who knows, I never seen one. I have never seen anything but hostile connections coming from China. Not one.

    5. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      To be fair a very large portion of that population (75%) have no internet access. 360M is still a lot of users, but it's a lot less than a billion.

    6. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Mandrin Chinese is the most common first language in the world, but I'll give you a guess what the most common second language in the world is, and I bet the percentage is even higher among young, computer literate, internet users.

    7. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by x2A · · Score: 1

      Cheers, I was interested in the figures but not quite enough to have searched yet :-)

      If you notice though, the total world population % with access to the internet is 1.3% lower than China's reported figure, so the figures pretty much balance out, whether looking at online figures or total population figures, it's about a sixth either way. Haha I was kinda banking on the the figures for the rest of the world balancing it out, as I did see that counter argument coming, I couldn't've hoped for them being only 1.3% apart! Almost as if I put those figures there myself... ;-)

      Nah, I'm sure I would remember if I did :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Stupid Africa.

    9. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by Anpheus · · Score: 1

      They have government controlled packet inspection on their internet backbone, and they claim to be unable to do anything about the countless hacking attempts, probes and the like? B.S.

    10. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      Unlike English, Spanish (The second one, for a nose.) it's not so given for weird words or overly simplification, You either write it good or you're not going to be understood. Of course, there are memes in Spanish but those are a different animal than English memes. Languages are fun.

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

      Ahora, fuera de mi cesped!

    11. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      most common second language in the world

      Not second most common language. From air traffic controllers at all international airports to street vendors who want to harass tourists, English is the way to go.

    12. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by x2A · · Score: 1

      But, it's a *lot* easier to achieve that in Spanish than in English... I know very little Spanish, started trying to learn some not too long ago, haven't got amazingly far yet, not had much chance to... but, put a spanish word in front of me, and I can read it and pronounce it no prob. My native language is English, which I'm pretty good with (compared to the majority of other native speakers I know who are sloppy as hell!) yet you can put a new English word in front of me, and I can still get it wrong, because we have *so* many exceptions and competing rules depending on which language the word originated from, that you either know a word, or you've just gotta take a stab at it and hope someone'll correct you if you need it.
      Spanish's phonetic spelling pretty much removes that problem. Still, it does have other complexities in other areas that English is simpler on too.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    13. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      ... that's where 100% of them come from!!!

            80%+ of attacks I see come from China and (former) Soviet Union. Why block the rest of the world when the bulk of the attacks come from there?

            And so, yes, I block IP address blocks from China and (former) Soviet Union. The noise to signal ratio is such that there's no signal.

        rd

    14. Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking by x2A · · Score: 1

      Haha i kinda arrived at the same conclusion, but completely different countries... I'm not big business, my clients are all bigger businesses than mine, but they don't have customers from the regions we've had attacks from, blocking the ip ranges for those countries wouldn't really have negative effects on our businesses... but there's no way I could actually do that. Partly, I have a somewhat "you asked for it" attitude when I've warned of a security problem and it's been ignored as "nah that won't happen". An attack could come more locally, and I can protect better against them when I'm armed with a "told you so" or two :-)
      But even that aside, that standards I have for myself and what I consider a personal failure just don't allow it (not on moral grounds, this isn't judgement, purely based on what I set out to achieve) ... I want to know that I can defend against incoming attacks, wherever they might come from, and so preemptively blocking a whole country would be like giving up. If that's not a goal of yours, blocking a country you do no business with is simply pragmatic, I don't argue there.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  4. Not answering the real issues by Jaden42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Talk about a non-responsive response: "Our rules don't allow for hacking and violations of citizen's privacy".

    Considering the state of privacy there, they certainly aren't lying.

  5. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quick! Get your tin foil hats! I knew the government was watching me!

  6. Dollars... by reverendbeer · · Score: 1

    I'm sure RIAA or the MPAA is behind this push for "freedom".

  7. Finally! Youtube in China! by naz404 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have a friend in Shanghai, and it sucks because when I send him video links on Youtube, he can't view them because they're firewalled from Youtube.

    Kudos for giving countries like this access to freedom of information.

    It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.

    4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside, I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what's force-fed down their throats and see what they're missing out on.

    1. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Jahava · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.

      Yeah ... it's not just like that. It's exactly that :)

      4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside, I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what's force-fed down their throats and see what they're missing out on.

      The Internet is about way more than culture. It provides individual access to the sum wealth of human information. Good, bad, underbelly, culture ... those are all subjective. That's the beauty of it. By providing the individual with the opportunity to access any information, but not requiring them to access any specific information, the Internet provides an individual with unprecedented potential. They can do exactly what they want with that potential, be it 4chan, China-like censorship, or full-fledged involvement in mainstream cultures.

      Maybe many of the people in China love their country's protective hand. We'll never know until they can choose whether or not to have it.

    2. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      If they lived here they'd have the freedom to watch only Fox News.

    3. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.

      Whereas in the US (where corporations own the government)

      It's like being only allowed to watch Corporation-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.

    4. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by arekusu_ou · · Score: 0

      China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?

      America and UK has been bashing China for this and that, while they slowly do it themselves, China with it's long history just happened to be more efficient and arrived at a goal sooner while UK police state follows and America being slow to adopt trails behind. Why doesn't the Western world and their citizens lead by example first, demolish their State control, and after that worry about other countries.

      During the hippie age, the US Gov put tons of people under surveillance for no good reason except being anti-establishment. During this technology age, the State wiretap and snoop at will, in the guise of national security. Search and Seizures at the border. Who knows how deep this goes. Didn't the FBI and NSA have warrantless wiretapping of American citizens? Didn't the CIA operate on domestic soil against it's mandate? Didn't past and current president excuse the outting of a loyal CIA operative and put life and career at risk for political reasons?

      Sure all the US is doing is "watching and breaking privacy" and waiting for people to do something that gives the Gov an excuse to do away with them. China's not just watching and waiting with a big stick, but actively discouraging behavior that would bring upon the big stick. Don't people everywhere do the same thing with children? Set rules and boundaries. Those fences to keep children cordon in an area. Make up stories like the Stork, Santa Claus, and Easter Bunny, because they aren't ready for the truth?

      The Western world create rules of what's considered appropriate and inappropriate as does China, China is just more extreme. The Western world keep an eye on anti-establishment and keep anyone they feel are threats under control. The Western world erase any lines of rights when dealing with those who they consider terrorist, an affront to their safety and control. Only instead of waiting for problems to come up, China assumes their entire populace is a threat to be kept under control.

      Again who's to say who's right and who's wrong? And if China's wrong, why is the Western world following suit as their own technology and ability rises, if it's not jealousy. That and China's great firewall has been disclosed. What does the US have hidden?

    5. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by pha3r0 · · Score: 1

      I hate being the one to play devils advocate, and I am by no means a fan of China or censorship but I want to pose a question to the class.

      Why? I live in America. I hate seeing people held down because we have thus far been afforded great freedoms albeit at great personal costs. Can the 1.3billion Chinese not have there own revolution? Yes, yes I know they can't even legally read about ours but if the majority of them is still content why do we feel the need to exacerbate the situation.

      Bonus question, definitely biased though: And if it is okay for us to do this is Hilary Clinton really the one we want rattling the chains?

    6. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by pha3r0 · · Score: 1

      It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.

      China by no means has access the 'The wealth of the world' just because google stops filtering on their side.

    7. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?

      I daresay anyone who was shot, their organs auctioned off, and their families billed for the bullet might have an opinion or two. Its important to differentiate between the beautiful and unique Chinese culture which stretches back thousands of years, and the organlegging jackbooted slavers currently in charge of the country.

    8. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who's to say who's right and who is wrong?

      Well, if you follow the basic laws of ethics, I'd say every party involved is wrong. A violation of human rights is always wrong. I criticize China and I criticize the U.S. and the U.K. and every other country I see a problem with.

      If what China does is wrong, and the West does it too, then the West is also wrong. Not that most people ever like to admit "their" side isn't in the right.

      When we take away the rights of terrorists here, we're wrong, too. Our founding principle of government here in America was supposed to be that all men are to be treated equal under the law. Not "American Citizens." Not "only registered combatants." All men. Period. I would say this is ethically justifiable in that a world in which everyone can express themselves freely is a world where I, personally, am guaranteed that freedom of expression. The fact that we have fallen far from this path does not change the ideal we should be aiming for, nor does it excuse other countries when they do the same.

    9. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't know why this is marked troll, its based on facts...

      Organ harvesting in China

      Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China refers to the practice of removing human organs and tissue from the corpses of criminals executed in China and using these organs for organ transplants.

      Families billed for bullets in China

      In the past, capital punishment was carried out by a single shot to the back of the head at execution fields outside Chinese cities and families of the dead were sent a bill for the bullet.

      Slavery in China

      It's a story that has made headlines around the world: Slave laborers have been found in Chinese brick factories. The authorities have freed many of them, but some fear there could be hundreds more being imprisoned, beaten and starved. Some parents have begun searching for their sons on their own.

    10. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Google is no longer filtering search terms for China, that doesn't mean that Google is somehow going to take down the great firewall.

    11. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How many starving, unarmed slaves are needed to take out a tank?
      At some point, revolution from within becomes impossible regardless of the numerical advantage. Even the US had foreign allies, and more importantly, an armed citizenship existing before the beginning of the revolution.

    12. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Well, on the slavery bit at least I think it is probably questionable how much the central regime sanctions that. Maybe some local officials take bribes to look the other way, and maybe the government doesn't do enough about it, but it doesn't sound like this is sanctioned policy.

      I'm more concerned about stuff like general censorship, Tienanmen Square, and disappearing activists. Those activities are fully state sanctioned.

    13. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Bloopie · · Score: 1

      I daresay anyone who was shot, their organs auctioned off, and their families billed for the bullet might have an opinion or two.

      I know some people are pretty opinionated, but . . . after they are dismembered and their brains taken out?

    14. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see the problem with this. Once they're dead, what do they give a shit about their organs? Their organs are being used to help sick people. Otherwise they would just rot in a grave.

      I also don't see a problem with being shot in the head as a method of execution. It's quick, cheap, and probably painless. Do you think the electric chair is better? Again, once they're dead, I don't think they care about how they died.

    15. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What exactly is preventing you from watching other things ?

      Sorry to say the obvious but here it is : laziness.

    16. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because bringing up organ harvesting, execution practices and slavery to someone merely suggesting to take a step back and try a more empathic approach to thinking about this case provides as much insight as bashing the united states by bringing up gitmo, the iraq war and our long list of embarrassing political corruption cases we churn out regularly in response to a better approach to thinking over how we could improve our situation. You aren't helping your case, you're really trying to appeal to a pitchfork-wielding knee-jerk-reaction prone crowd who can't be bothered to look up both sides of the story or put themselves in their shoes.

      Yes, shit happens in China but it's not much different than everywhere else in the world except that they are better at hiding it, disguising it or worse, making their population numb to it. Yet, to all the people in China who are barely starting to see a modern life quality for the first time in generations, want nothing to do with their government's stance on internal affairs or are actively fighting it on their own, I think it's a bit unfair to lump all of them together with this whole "China's evil" slogan, don't you think?

      With the current direction of all discussions about China, I wouldn't be surprised if we formed lynch mobs and a double digit percentage of voters who'll support a full scale invasion of China to liberate all those dollars which are rightfully ours as soon as the news overhears this and takes some notes.

    17. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bit unfair to lump all of them together with this whole "China's evil" slogan, don't you think?

      I didn't say China was evil. I said the traditions and culture of the Chinese people are something to respect and appreciate for their many merits, to the extent that I speak a smattering of Mandarin myself; the government in China is an entirely different story.

      Being able to differentiate the people of a country from those who have managed to worm their way into power in that country is not that difficult.

    18. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many starving, unarmed slaves are needed to take out a tank?
      At some point, revolution from within becomes impossible regardless of the numerical advantage. Even the US had foreign allies, and more importantly, an armed citizenship existing before the beginning of the revolution.

      Turns out that it's just one

    19. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Thats what is called a personal interest story. Emotionally moving. Full of fluff. Ultimately pointless.
      Note he didn't damage or disable anything. The tanks stopped of their own accord to spare him. They could have just as easily ran him over and that be the end of the story.

    20. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes, shit happens in China but it's not much different than everywhere else in the world except that they are better at hiding it, disguising it or worse, making their population numb to it.

      Not even CLOSE to being the truth. The west outs the majority of our junk. We know and object to the issues here. In china, the majority of junk is hidden from the citizens. Heck, it is amazing that you state that we hide things, when it is CHina that has the control over their media and goes to great lengths to prevent publications of such.

      Yet, to all the people in China who are barely starting to see a modern life quality for the first time in generations, want nothing to do with their government's stance on internal affairs or are actively fighting it on their own, I think it's a bit unfair to lump all of them together with this whole "China's evil" slogan, don't you think?

      First, that is quite the sentence. Second, in general, when referring to a nation (such as China's evil), that is the GOV, not the ppl. There is a difference ESP. in a totalitarian nation such as China. The reason is that you can not vote that gov. in or out. What I am telling you, is to not take it personal. I think that there are few who would state that the Chinese ppl are inheritantly evil. I speak out against China all the time, but that is because China, the gov., is in a cold war mentality against the west, and the west is doing nothing about it. However, I HOPE that Chinese ppl will ultimately rise up against their gov. Somehow, I doubt it, while their nation is in a fast economic tear. That is why I want the west to have China honor their treaties and WTO obligations.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    21. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How many starving, unarmed slaves are needed to take out a tank?

      You don't start with tanks when you're unarmed, really. You start with ground troops, swarm and kill them, and then survivors take their weapons and move on.

      And tanks? Well, a Molotov cocktail (as many as it takes, which is still a finite and practically reachable number) can take one out, and can be easily produced with commonly available and unrestricted materials even by slaves.

    22. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by iabill · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am from America but live in China. You make good points about governmental control and such, but as always, it is a question of degree.I am over 50 and have experienced what you call to question in the States and can say that the governmental censorship in China is appalling cant compare to anything I have seen in the west. It reminds me of a dictatorial regime, trying to compare it to that of the USA is unreasonable.For instance, I attend university here and have Professors that have been censored by the Chinese government for discussion that they have had in class. That is today in 2010, not during the cultural revolution- these guys are followed as well to ensure they stay quiet. So, when we discuss this topic we must take a realistic look at the USA as well as China. Now, regarding your your claim about America in terms of wiretapping etc. They do, do this, all in the name of national security (supposedly). The benefit of the west or benefits, are the fact that you are aware of this, eventhough you are not an American, nor part of the government (transparency-1) I will address later, and that you can comment publicly on this matter without fear of reprisal from the government (as in present day China) or them treating you like a child- as you mention in your post "Don't people everywhere do the same thing with children...rules ...boundaries...to keep children cordon in an area... Make up stories like the Stork, Santa Claus,...they aren't ready for the truth?" To wit, the west does not treat one as a child, they are treated with a form of human rights that allows all to express their opinions- they are not protected by some state sponsored truth; it is assumed that they are mature and intelligent enough to make reasonable decisions- thus you have respect and a basic human right to knowledge. Secondly the issue of transparency. Yes the USA did and does some horrible things, but as stated, you hear of them,cover ups dont last long. Contrast this to China and all of the state sponsored deceit (too numerous to articulate). Thus, if and when the west or the USA does someting such as this, we are able to pursue it, discuss it, take action agains it- something that is impossible in China today.

    23. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?

      The result being that life has been pretty shitty for most people throughout China's history.

      The rest of your apologizing for China is pretty sick.

    24. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      It would be very cyberpunk and cool if they try, though. A man can dream, can't he?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    25. Re:Finally! Youtube in China! by pha3r0 · · Score: 1

      As shutdown said below you don't start with the tanks. I wouldn't even start with armed forces. Go after politcal figures then when they board up behind the military you give them a choice, fire on their own unarmed countrymen or step aside.

      Of course you will have mixed results but once the PRC issues orders to fire on unarmed civilians then it quickly becomes a human rights atrocity and other country will then have a reason to help.

      I guess part of my point is if the majority of the citizens are unwilling to make a sacrifice now to change their own future why should anyone else roll that ball for them?

      When we told the crown to F off most of us realized it wasn't going to happen without huge losses but we knew that we no longer wanted to be oppressed and we knew even if we didn't live to see it our children would.

  8. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Rawjava · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But since its america, no one complains because "god bless america". If china had this kind of propaganda there wouldnt be as big of a problem.

  9. So when... by lattyware · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does Australia get no Google? And the UK, we are getting pretty poor at this freedom thing.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    1. Re:So when... by Jahava · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When it as a nation performs attacks on Google's servers...

    2. Re:So when... by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google said the attacks "originated from within China". They said there were "sophisticated attacks" against human rights activists, which involved accessing their accounts by use of the "correct username and password". I have yet to find where they have said there is any evidence to believe it was the Chinese government "as a nation" who carried this out, despite what news outlets have said (like they'd ever blow something out of proportion or report something uncertain as being certain). Originating in China narrows it down to a tiny ONE SIXTH of the worlds population! There're so many other possible explanations, such as it being carried out by someone wanting to make it look like it was Chinese government to get sympathy for their cause, or it could be that so many activists out there are dumb as hell and clicked stuff that other people didn't... how many NON human rights activists were hit by this attack? Was every single person whose account was hit one of the activists?

      Now, with the Chinese governments history, I would hardly call it surprising if it was them... but making the leap from it originating within the largest country in the world, and therefore it must be the government, is far too much of a leap for me to take without there being at least some other small piece of suppporting evidence.

      Does anyone have anything to offer? Pictures of people being killed or whatever don't count, they only support claims that people are killed. Of course, if you're okay with killing, you're probably okay with hacking, but there are more people that kill than the chinese government, and they can't all be responsible for the hacking thing, so that doesn't prove, or even suggest, that it was them.

      Have I missed a statement from Google or something that someone can point me so where they actually say they believe the government was responsible? Even if they're not disclosing evidence, have they even said they've seen any?

      Am I the only person who refuses to believe something purely on the grounds that it makes me angry? These aren't unreasonable questions.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    3. Re:So when... by dwater · · Score: 1

      No, you're not the only one. I offer the following points :

      1. The servers hacked where those whose purpose was to supply email headers to the US government. Why shouldn't the Chinese gov get them too?
      2. Google hacked into the computer from which they claim the attacked originated. Why is *that* ok?
      3. Most spam is sent *via* hacked Chinese servers and if Google managed to hack into it, why couldn't anyone (including the Chinese dissidents themselves)?

      I'd be much more likely to listen to Google and their threats if they weren't doing poorly business-wise in China. IMO, Google have decided China isn't working for them and want to leave China for that reason: so they're just using this to spin it in a different light.

      If they do leeave, I don't think many will notice. Google just isn't relevant there. Of course, Google share holders will notice, so I don't think they have the balls.

      --
      Max.
    4. Re:So when... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Just because Google is in second place doesn't mean they're doing poorly - 29% of a market of 300+ million online users is
      pretty darn good. If you think that's "irrelevant", have a look at the market share of the 8 or so other search engines that
      operate in China.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:So when... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that. Will the US now be helping me get around the IWF's censorship attempts? I've not actually been blocked by them from anything that I want to see, but since (by law) they are not actually allowed to look at the things they are censoring to see if they really are illegal, it's only a matter of time. With the US government be running state-sponsored TOR nodes with enough bandwidth to push everyone's surfing through?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:So when... by x2A · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I agree with your conclusion, as I don't believe there's evidence either to suggest that... there's enough motive to go round an awful long way, it's just as wrong to suggest it was any one of them without presenting reason to believe one motivated party were responsible over another motivated party... BUT... did ya notice how Google's (well, I read the original blog, not sure how much that's a corporate vs personal statement, but I'm guessing it was pretty google) statement, they had to kind of play both sides? Hackerz!!! Vs "Everything's fine, stay with us".

      So, this attack meant the accounts were breached, BUT not through a security flaw of their own, the accounts were accessed using the correct username and password... and the privacy wasn't fully breached; they saw the email subject lines and dates etc, but didn't access any of the actual message bodies. Oh, and also, while the sophisticated attacks (ie, logging in???) weren't through a flaw in their system, they have increased security measures to protect accounts in the future... hmm, okay, I guess that last one isn't totally contradictary, you can mitigate against problems outside of your system, but still... this just doesn't quite add up.

      They haven't said they believe it to be the government, but they have definitely eluded to it, by discussing talks to change their search engine with the government within the same statement in a rather linked way. If they don't have any reason to believe it's the government, but word their statements in a way designed to make people believe they do, perhaps to gain leverage for the talks, that would be a bad thing. But, if they did have reason to believe it was them, I can understand keeping it quiet to protect their staff in the country, as they could be arrested for what Google did, or worse. Personally I would want to pull them out of the country, and then go public, but it might be impossible pulling that many people out discreetly enough.

      This is the problem, none of this is believable, because it's all hypothetical, nobody's actually come out and said anything, there's not been the slightest actual assertion, just a lot of eluding. I can understand reasons why that might be necessary... but what I don't understand is, how come everyone's acting like they know something I don't? Do they know something I don't, do they think they know it because they misunderstood Google's statement, are they just so easily convinced of everything based upon absolutely nothing at all, or do they not care as long as they get to be angry and hate someone in another country? Or of course, something else?*

      (*What I have done here, is recognised and demonstrated that I have recognised that I might not have thought of everything, am open to the idea that I haven't, and invite additional information... how come people don't do that?!! It's not hard!!!)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    7. Re:So when... by dwater · · Score: 1

      I think it's irrelevant to Chinese people, no matter what the %. If Google disappears, they'll just use one of the other ones. I really don't think many people there actually *like* to use Google in the way that people in the US seem to.

      It's relevant to Google, of course; and I suppose the figure itself might seem to suggest some success, but I don't think that's the whole story either...it's just search. I wonder what the figures are for Google's other services and the impact for their real income - they're just an advertising company in the end. Of course, I could be wrong and they're quite happy with their success there, but I suspect otherwise.

      --
      Max.
    8. Re:So when... by dwater · · Score: 1

      > how come people don't do that?!! It's not hard!!

      Well, there's one obvious answer to that...ie is hard because there is no other information...though I think I gave you some that seemed to be missing from your original post, though I guess you knew it already.

      --
      Max.
    9. Re:So when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like when the U.S. government does it to potential "terrorists", right? Or the CIA does it to leftist leaders in other countries right? Do you really believe all that twitter organizing in Iran is strictly internal? What about people the U.S. government and European governments have arrested for posting certain materials online and attempts to censor the Internet? CIA wiretaps anyone? Sexting arrests? Indymedia? What about Sherman and others like him that you don't hear about who've had their boxes raided for posting more critical information? What about instances where instead of shutting them up they bought them out? You realize that net neutrality is not only about $$$ but our fight to keep our ability to post information freely without being consumed by U.S. corporate propaganda?

      Remember my friends all those ads, all that spam, all that "entertainment" jazz and pr0n you see on the tubes everyday really translates to capitalist propaganda. The tubes are swarming with more of this than anything else - we are just so used to it, we don't recognize it for what it is.

      What I'm amazed about China, is for all their hacking they don't pull off information about U.S. cyber attacks on other countries or even their fights to do exactly what China is doing in their war against the spread of Islam. I'm figuring China would be seen as extremely hypocritical as well if they critiqued U.S. attempts or maybe even it might scare them that U.S. citizens are actively fighting this - well at least the ones that are a little more awake to what's going on.

      I know some of you might think what I'm saying is harsh or even toss it off like its meaningless - but if we really believe in freedom, its time we start really thinking what it really is and fighting for it, not only for ourselves but others as well. In cases like this though, it really does start in the home and we can't fix China if we are letting similar things happen right in our own back yards.

    10. Re:So when... by MunchMunch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some points about Google's motivation to leave:

      1. 30% market share in the incredibly anti-foreign-business Chinese market is not just a success, it's an incredible success. China typically favors local companies both above and below the board. Any foreign business trying to break into China would kill for that market share in their relevant market. Yahoo or Bing would kill for that share. The idea they would just leave because they weren't the leader is not simply hard to believe, it is completely irrational.

      2. Whatever evidence we have, Google and the US government have not disclosed all of it. If some random nobody from China hacked into Google's servers, why would Google would pull out of China? I honestly can think of no benefit to Google. Market share failure argument aside (see #1), the only benefit they gain from pulling out is PR. That's pretty worthless in today's blasé world. On the contrary, if Google did indeed have evidence that the attacks originated from the Chinese government (and do we really doubt that have that capability? I imagine they have more than enough expertise to find the origin), then that would perfectly explain their decision to pull out. Occam's razor really points to the Chinese government directing these attacks.

    11. Re:So when... by GreyFish · · Score: 1

      When you make claim like this (google hacking into server etc.), it would be REALLY helpful if you would include links to back them up.

    12. Re:So when... by russotto · · Score: 1

      Google said the attacks "originated from within China". They said there were "sophisticated attacks" against human rights activists, which involved accessing their accounts by use of the "correct username and password". I have yet to find where they have said there is any evidence to believe it was the Chinese government "as a nation" who carried this out

      Google isn't going to say that outright as long as they have employees in China. You're supposed to connect the dots.

      Verisign, on the other hand, apparently has no problem pointing the finger at China:

      Verisign blames China

    13. Re:So when... by russotto · · Score: 1

      1. The servers hacked where those whose purpose was to supply email headers to the US government. Why shouldn't the Chinese gov get them too?

      Cite please, or you're making this up to start a rumor.

      2. Google hacked into the computer from which they claim the attacked originated. Why is *that* ok?

      By the principles of self defense. The belief among much of the so-called white-hat community that it is somehow unethical to respond in kind to hacking is ridiculous and counterproductive.

    14. Re:So when... by x2A · · Score: 1

      "that it is somehow unethical to respond in kind to hacking is ridiculous and counterproductive"

      No it's not, it's well founded and for good reasons, but in this instance it's unclear (to me, perhaps clearer to people more in the know) that those reasons necessarily apply.

      We have laws. We have laws that say what is and isn't allowed, and what the consequences will be if they are broken. They allow for specific things within specific boundaries for self defense under specific situations, because people who are the victim of a crime are often not the best people to be deciding what should happen... they can want to strike back with a full vengance, and that's not a good path to start down. They can make mistakes about who's responsible, and take their anger out on an innocent. They could just be mislead; used to carry out a crime by someone else by proxy. All kinds of reasons, I'm sure you get it.

      So that's the way we are... it's pretty engrained, and most of the time it's right... you have a problem like that, you let the law handle it, you don't take the law into your own hands, it's too dangerous to let people go down that route.

      However I will concede that that only really works when you are protected by the law. Hacking attacks are too new a thing, with police not set up to deal with it, and perhaps no one that can... and in china? I'm guessing that best case scenario there is they're having similar types of problems, with worse case being that they just won't do anything by choice... well, no I guess the worse case is it's the government doing it to begin with, so they're not going to protect you.

      This probably applies to a lot of what goes on, I deal with a fair few attacks that seem to be coming out of the middle east; there's no legal recourse for that. Fortuantely it's not a huge problem for me; I can lock them out, and can use it to prove to my clients they need to listen to me when I say something's insecure and will get them hacked. Not considering themselves a worthy target doesn't mean anything when it's automated scripts doing the search 'n exploit stage. You have an IP address, they will look at you!

      It's definitely not a ridiculous attitude that people have though towards it though, it is based on doing what's right and what's best in situations that we're used to in the rest of life. People are starting to realise they need to break away from this a bit her though, and people have started taking down botnets themselves using "hacking" techniques etc.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    15. Re:So when... by x2A · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK too... Google has become a verb, that always demonstrates an exceptional level of success, that your product has entered into common language usage. Google isn't on a par with other search engines, they will usually give you much better results than competitor search engines. Some comedy stand up guy the other week here said on TV that if Google suddenly went offline, people would be catapulted back to the 1600s or something, not have a clue what to do etc etc etc... obviously exagerated for comedic effect etc, but still, shows the level of penetration 'n public acceptance. They have become, to many, the gateway to the internet, to the point where it could be a worrying thing - too much power 'n control in one place.

      A customer's site got compromised somehow, some javascript thing got put on some of the pages, it was spotted so I was brought in to clean it up 'n see how it happened etc. It took -weeks- afterwards for Google to be updated to remove the warning about the site being potentially dangerous when people clicked on it in search results. That properly damaged business for them. We filled out the forms 'n did various stuff google provides functions for, but we were basically screwed, and just had to wait and hope. That's a lot of power.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    16. Re:So when... by x2A · · Score: 1

      Erm, sort of knew, some can't upgrade to 'know' status without something more concrete, a source etc, but still welcome your reply nonetheless.

      "is hard because there is no other information"

      But when there's no information, then people don't know... I guess I respond in such situations with curiosity or disinterest, others seem to respond by making shot in the dark guesses that least challenges existing beliefs, and then acting like that's fact as found out from something/someone authoritive. No information makes it hard(/impossible) to know anything with any level of certainty... one guess is as good as another. I don't understand the leap from "there's no information" to "therefore I know this must be true" :-/ see my point at all?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    17. Re:So when... by x2A · · Score: 1

      The leaving bit - Google have said they're not... so end of on that one really! I didn't think they would; I thought at most, they might be using the situation to their advantage to try leverage something, but there's too little information made public to even make guesses as to the likelihood of that, or what it could be.

      Google have said though is that their servers -were not- hacked into. The accounts that were accessed were accessed only partially (subject lines, dates etc, but none of the email body texts) and were accessed using the correct login and password. From information that seems to be out in the following days, and perhaps stuff that was eluded to in the original statement, I don't remember specifically, but it seemed what was being said was the attacks were against the individuals machines, which gained the attackers access to the usernames and passwords used to login to gmail et al in the normal fashion.

      Occam's razor just isn't sufficient here. The choices aren't "it was chinese government or google themselves who did this"... if it was, then yeah, chinese government seems more likely of the two. It's not hard to believe a situation where this is done by someone anti-PRC, knowing that people will just believe it's PRC that's responsible, increasing internation sympathy for their cause. That's no more implausable than it being the chinese government. Because there is more than one perfectly plausable answer, the belief in a preferred scenario over another where someone else is responsible is about as meaningful as believing it was a flying spaghetti monster that did it.

      We all know what we can guess, repeating it constantly convincing ourselves it's true lies somewhere between stupid and ignorant... people shouldn't be talking about their guesses as if they've already been shown to be true, or alternatives have been ruled out. As a species we really need to hurry 'n grow out of this pretending to be certain when it's just impossible for us to be. Wars get started that way.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    18. Re:So when... by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Am I the only person who refuses to believe something purely on the grounds that it makes me angry? These aren't unreasonable questions.

            Probably. And you got insightful for not knowing anything about it as well. So maybe you're not the only one.

            The attacks came from IP addresses used by the Chinese government. Yes, sophisticated crackers could hijack the IP addresses and pretend they are the Chinese government by breaking into Chinese political activist gmail accounts just to make you right, but I doubt it.

        rd

    19. Re:So when... by dwater · · Score: 1

      I suppose there's an argument there that 30% could be considered successful - it's not my opinion, but anyway, I think it'd be much more telling to see some figures for profits. Having people use their search service is one thing, but their actual money comes from advertising, and I have to wonder if they're being successful in turning that 30% into actual rmb. Some high numbers there *would* convince me.

      --
      Max.
    20. Re:So when... by dwater · · Score: 1

      Oh, ok. I thought that was general knowledge...let me see if I can find it. I think it was on the BBC world news, and it's how they discovered the 'hacking' was more widespread than just Google (and affected the other big companies there too).

      Well, this isn't the reference I originally saw, but it hints at it :

      "Google was able to determine, by examining the server, that the hackers had struck numerous other companies, she said. Google said in its Tuesday announcement that 20 other companies had been hacked. But iDefense found evidence that at least 33 were targeted."

      I guess you can do your own research into if it is actually fact or not...it's a good point to question, for sure.

      --
      Max.
    21. Re:So when... by dwater · · Score: 1

      > Cite please, or you're making this up to start a rumor

      No. You can find this out for yourself. It's not my fault if you're not following the story closely enough.

      "making this up to start a rumor[sic]" is not the only alternative to not citing sources.

      --
      Max.
  10. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.

    Trust me, if it was government censorship you were experiencing, it would take an act of god to stop the censorship. Not a few phone calls from Mr. TheWebSiteIsDown.

  11. Is it hacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it actualy be cracking (I assume it's what they ment ;-) ) for internet users in china to get around the great firewall? The owners of the information the people want to access has effectivly given universal permission for the access of the data and the use of say a proxy site or ssh to a server in the US wouldn't realy be modifying any software at all.

  12. Irony at its finest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because Hillary would never want anything censored now would she.

    (Not the same league as China, but its still the same sport...)

  13. Evolution in action! by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Oh come now. Think of it as natural selection, weeding out the less competent network security policies and practitioners. Those that remain will be stronger, faster, and smell better between showers.

    If Google can fend off the People's Army, then your Gmail account is probably pretty proof against plain old identity thief hackers from Chicago. So this is good news!

  14. Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by naz404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really love what Hillary Clinton said in the article:

    "Ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom -- it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit," she said.

    "It's about whether we live on a planet with one Internet, one global community and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."


    Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye :)

    1. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like that speech. Sounds a bit "Ein Reich, Ein Volk" to me. How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.

    2. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye :)

      Kind of makes you wonder who wrote those words, eh? Or is Hilary the only politician without writers?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " ... it is about what kind of world we want ..."

      Here "we" means the americans.

      We understand the motivation of Clinton, because USA has the largest porn industry on the planet.

    4. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by omglolbah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wanting to see something, and actually censoring them are two very different things.

      I really do not want a political party in norway that worships norse gods and hate jews and black people...
      but I dont think they should be banned from speaking either.. Freedom of speech.. even for douchebags ;)

    5. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by kdemetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't like that speech. Sounds a bit "Ein Reich, Ein Volk" to me. How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.

      Really ? To me , it's more like the opposite : she is talking about one global community , were everyone has the same access to information ,regardless of race , culture , language , etc ...

      It's a bit utopian , but on the internet , it is possible : one of great things of the internet , is that if you desire it , you can hide your identity .
      If no one knows who you are , they cannot judge you on your race , color , sex , etc ...
      They can only judge you on your words and actions on the internet.

    6. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.

      Let me first state that I'm a pretty conservative person, and wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton for dogcatcher. (I also wouldn't vote for Al Gore, who's going to show up later in my argument.

      Hillary Clinton played a role in shaping the domestic agenda of the (Bill) Clinton administration. The Internet became big and important to the common man during that administration. The Clintons had a chance to nip free speech on the Internet in the bud during that time, and they could have gotten away with it before most people would have noticed the difference. They didn't do it. Instead, they allowed the Internet to become a political arena, one in which her friend and political ally Al Gore was criticized 6 million times in the year before the 2000 election for "claiming that he invented the internet." He never made that claim, but people think he did because that idea spread, mostly over the Internet. Conservatives criticize liberals. Liberals criticize conservatives. Assorted crazies (9/11 truthers come to mind) criticize regular society. People from regular society don't have to fear libel complaints from the assorted crazies. And this is all legal, despite the fact the Clintons had the opportunity to make it not so.

      Based on Hillary Clinton's record of not actually censoring the Internet, I'm pretty sure that it's fair to assume she's for an Internet that is not censored for political speech.

    7. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Western hypocrites are once again busy pointing fingers at others, while at the same time engaging in state terrorism (e.g. Iran) and illegal invasions of other countries (e.g. Iraq). The media is happy to use censorship and creative manipulation of truth to present whatever version best supports their political agenda. I don't think we're in any way qualified to tell China what to do, until we sort out our own problems.

    8. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that's what Freedom of Speech is all about, isn't it?
      No one needs to protect popular opinions. Once you decide "douchebags can't have free speech!" then who gets to decide who's a douchebag?

      Well, I suppose we could use a sort of metric like, "percent of income spent on Axe body spray," but that'd have some kinks to work out.

    9. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."

      Yeah, it's touching... it's also empty bullshit. When ACTA comes into effect, Hilary will be pushing hard to enforce the whims of her censors.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    10. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      I think she should really talk this through with his husband. (DMCA, anyone?)

    11. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Funny

      I disagree. I doubt that it would have been possible even in the Clinton era to pass legislation to block free speech online. That's a pretty big assumption.

    12. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by eples · · Score: 1

      Clinton only favors freedom for corporations, not for people.

      That is an utterly absurd statement. Look at the latest Supreme Court decision regarding corporate speech and the movie titled "Hillary".

      --
      I'm a 2000 man.
    13. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      leaves out the third way- One Internet, one global community, one body of knowledge, where everyone's access to information is dependant on the whims of Hillary.

    14. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha this is clever I'd mod you up.

    15. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by donovansmith · · Score: 1

      Once you decide "douchebags can't have free speech!" then who gets to decide who's a douchebag? Well, I suppose we could use a sort of metric like, "percent of income spent on Axe body spray," but that'd have some kinks to work out.

      Change that to "any percentage of income spent on Axe body spray" and you'd have a very simple system to determine who qualifies for that designation. "I bought it as a gift" is no excuse. Actual usage of said product should be punishable by 10 years hard labor.

    16. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      Kind of makes you wonder who wrote those words, eh? Or is Hilary the only politician without writers?

            Hillary is a smart gal. She didn't need a writer to write that.

            She does however have a Secretary of State staff that she would coordinate with on developing US policy.

            If you had heard a few of the speeches she makes without notes, you would know that that is the way she talks and writes.

        rd

    17. Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you had heard a few of the speeches she makes without notes, you would know that

      ...she is either able to memorize well, or is wearing an invisible ear bug and is being prompted verbally. A great deal of work goes into making politicians appear slick. Hilary is a corporate whore like the rest of her colleagues. She collected an enormous pile of cash from big pharma after "her" public health plan was peed on. Believing in her is folly at best.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  15. The Chinese better be careful what they say by ionix5891 · · Score: 3, Funny

    or we might use our tectonic weapon on them :O

  16. Typical US of A mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some reason they think they're the world police.

    1. Re:Typical US of A mentality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Fuck Yeah!

    2. Re:Typical US of A mentality by Renraku · · Score: 1

      The USA isn't the world police, even if they think they are. But you can't criticize them for taking steps to reduce the power of potential future opposition. China is responsible for a TON of industrial and scientific espionage. Companies are fully aware that their brand spanking new designs are being ripped off and sold for pennies on the dollar of their original price under different brand names, yet it's so much cheaper to send products to China to be produced that this doesn't deter them.

      But it's not cheaper to run a website in China than it is to run it here in America. Internet-based companies won't tolerate the hacking and espionage that production-based companies do, because the internet-based companies have nothing to lose.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    3. Re:Typical US of A mentality by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      Comin again to save the motherfuckin day yeah!

  17. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by mrmeval · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is an amazing bit of conspiriakii.

    There is not references other that some buzz words gleanable from US procurement contracts. No phone numbers, no names, no websites and yet you manage to get a +2 insightful.

    I am impressed.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  18. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by euyis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At least your censor don't act like an idiot.
    Hell, the Great Firewall even blocked the "Down for everyone or just me"; last night Amazon's images have all disappeared.
    And recently some imbeciles have configured the firewall block CDNs... The results are, bizarre.

  19. A view from inside China by afflatus_com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am actually currently in China. Sites which are carte-blance blocked include: Facebook, youtube, wikipedia, blogger.com (as a side note: Wikipedia really is useful--reminded of that now that it is not available).

    The reason for blocking Facebook and company is because they are starting to work for serious political change: see today's 'No Prorouge' rallies occurring today in Canada [and at worldwide Canadian embassies] after the Canadian prime minister leader cancelled the democratically-elected parliament for weeks--these rallies are a result of over 200,000 strong grassroots Facebook group support. Concurrent to that is an evaporation of that prime ministers lead in the polls versus the opposition party.

    --

    -----
    Cast a Cold Eye
    On Life, on Death
    Horseman, pass by
    --W.B. Yeats' gravestone
    1. Re:A view from inside China by LS · · Score: 0, Troll

      You are lying about still being in China. Wikipedia has been unblocked for a LONG time now. I'm sitting here in my apartment in Beijing reading about Descartes on Wikipedia.

      Also, the censorship aspect of Youtube and Facebook etc is a ruse. The main reason for them being blocked in protectionism. Control of information is a great secondary benefit. It's no coincidence that Facebook was blocked right around when it started gain traction outside of the US, including China, and several local sites here also began to pick up traction.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    2. Re:A view from inside China by solferino · · Score: 1

      Sites which are carte-blance blocked

      Poor use of the term carte blanche which means full power, open sanction, free hand etc.

    3. Re:A view from inside China by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Also, the censorship aspect of Youtube and Facebook etc is a ruse.

      You're kidding, right? You offer no evidence; please provide some.

      It's no coincidence that Facebook was blocked right around when it started gain traction outside of the US, including China, and several local sites here also began to pick up traction.

      Just to be explicit here, the above is no evidence for your position whatsoever. Before it gained any popularity in China, it was useless for the distribution of political speech to the masses, because of the limited user base.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:A view from inside China by magbottle · · Score: 0

      So how's come /. isn't blocked? We're not important enough? Not outre' enough? What?

    5. Re:A view from inside China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, you got a lot of nerve, telling people who live in China that they don't know what they're talking about. Link Link. Maybe closed mouth, open mind would work better next time.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:A view from inside China by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      And those are sites which are blocked absolutely, without any further clarification or influences just as someone who has been granted full powers operates.

      It's not a great use of it, but I wouldn't beat him up over it.

    7. Re:A view from inside China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia is still working down here in Guangdong

    8. Re:A view from inside China by njriley · · Score: 1

      Actually, it means "blank page." Makes sense to me.

    9. Re:A view from inside China by pla · · Score: 1

      You know, you got a lot of nerve, telling people who live in China that they don't know what they're talking about.

      They don't know, because their government won't let them... Kinda hard to have an informed stance on something you officially can't know.

    10. Re:A view from inside China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could both easily be right.

      I don't know where in China the GP is. But when I was there for the Olympics; YouTube and Wikipedia were blocked in Beijing (I couldn't say about twitter or facebook... I despise "social media/marketing" sites with a passion.). But when we went down to Shanghai after the games, both sites came in just fine. But when I was in Shanghai for business about a year and a half or so before that, I could access YouTube but not Wikipedia. So it does appear that China censors different parts of the internet at different times in different parts of the country.

    11. Re:A view from inside China by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2, Interesting

      GP was a foreigner living in China, as am I. Doesn't the native-level English tip you off? And it's not exactly a secret in China that foreign websites are blocked in order to stimulate the development of local ones. For every big major Western website type (youtube/facebook/twitter/etc) there is a corresponding Chinese ripoff site. I mean, look at renren.com and tell me it's not facebook exactly.

      And never assume that just because something is blocked or banned that Chinese people are too stupid to know it exists. Think of all the things the US government does and the citizenry is well aware of it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    12. Re:A view from inside China by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And it's not exactly a secret in China that foreign websites are blocked in order to stimulate the development of local ones.

      Your naivete is charming but also pathetic. If you really think that there is not a political agenda, you obviously are yourself being hoodwinked by the Chinese government, proving that their information control is working.

      All you need to do to institute protectionism is to make foreign resources work poorly. Then people will use the local substitutes. Blocking them outright is only necessary if you want to engage in censorship. Please think before you comment; I did, whether you think I did or not, but your head is still planted well into the clouds, whether your feet are in a rice paddy or not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:A view from inside China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wikipedia has always worked fine for me, and still is. Maybe there is certain content that is blocked, but I've never had an issue.

  20. Reporting Corruption ... by foobsr · · Score: 1

    TFS: "On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. "

    Quote: "Corruption costs Afghans $2.5 billion a year, a United Nations agency said on Tuesday, with the scale of bribery matching Afghanistan's opium trade."

    Probably my poor logic, since Afghans do not suffer from a repressive government.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  21. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has that mentality too. Probably a majority of Chinese feel that those Chinese dissidents who are bringing attention to government abuses and offenses against human rights are unpatriotic for embarrassing China. Just because there is a substantial number of educated Chinese who want human rights and a better China does not mean they are loved by the majority of their countrymen for pushing for these things, just as the Abolitionists in 1860's America were despised by northern industrialists (the descendants of slave traders) and southern slave owners alike.

  22. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by indiechild · · Score: 2, Funny

    So what "stuff" did you find and what websites were you looking at that were mysteriously blocked?

    You must be a very important person!

  23. Clinton backs Google to the hilt by solferino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clinton also called on U.S. businesses, particularly media providers, to fight censorship in the countries where they operate.

    "Censorship should not be in any way accepted by any company anywhere," she said. "American companies need to make a principled stand. This needs to be part of our national brand."

    This is very strong language. Google is getting full backing and all other US companies are being actively encouraged to follow their lead.

    1. Re:Clinton backs Google to the hilt by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It is strong, considering that "censorship" does include US censorship. The Chinese are far worse about this, but given that child pornography, atom bomb plans, and cryptography have all been limited by the US government, we can't claim complete innocence. And US companies have accepted cryptography censorship as a part of selling software internationally for decades.

      I'm glad at Clinton's stand, but the devil is in the details. We'll see if this helps reduce censorship in the USA as well as in China and other, more politically repressive domains worldwide. In fact, helping fund Wikileaks would be a great step in supporting free speech: if you've recovered from your Christmas bills, now might be a good time to send them a money order.

    2. Re:Clinton backs Google to the hilt by onefriedrice · · Score: 1

      I don't think the kind of censorship in America is at all comparable to the censorship in China.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    3. Re:Clinton backs Google to the hilt by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      There is enough of it to make a meaningful comparison. Take a look at Phil Zimmermans's conviction for publishing PGP. I'd agree that it is not _equivalent_, but I'd say that its extent and its pernicious nature do allow it to be compared to Chinese censorship. If you disagree, go try to get a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook" at your local city library.

  24. I'm Not a Betting Man... by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well... yeah, I am, actually. But I don't bet against Google. I also don't bet against China, which makes this dispute rather interesting. A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors. At the same time, any entity that willingly cuts itself off from google also cuts itself off from one of the most amazing information tools ever invented. If I had to call it, I'd say both sides make angry mouth noises for, oh, 3 to 6 months and then quietly settles on a compromise that allows Google to pretend that they're not evil while allowing China to continue keeping information out of the hands of its citizens.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by magbottle · · Score: 0

      Leaves a nice gap for Bing. Which is a nice fit, what with all the Microsoft R&D sites in China.

    2. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by hey! · · Score: 1

      That could get very interesting.

      Google is a very good search engine. In order to carve out a market position Bing does two things:

      (1) makes itself hard to avoid by cutting deals with third parties.

      (2) adds some features of marginal value.

      Getting in bed with the Chinese authorities after Google has just gotten out might change consumer perceptions of these things.

      Most people don't care to choose things, as long as they work. They don't have any strong feelings about Microsoft, but almost nobody likes the Chinese regime. Associate Bing with the Chinese government in their minds, and they might see their cell provider forcing Bing on them in the same way geek do.

      Likewise, with the right marketing by activists, user can be persuaded to have negative feelings about Bing because of its association with the regime. That could offset any marginal value Bing provides.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we obviously don't want to risk another cold war, I actually think a bit of grandstanding and rivalry between USA and China could make for interesting times.

      China could have another go at that Linux distro of theirs and achieve more independence in computing - or maybe they'd launch their own Windows clone - they have source code. They could rip off the American entertainment industry and start exporting more of their culture to the world at large.

      America could get their manufacturing industry up and running again, which may require adjusting their image of themselves as a super power down a notch and focusing on internal societal issues.

      Us in rest of the world would maintain good relations with both and try to keep things calm. The benefit for us would be gaining a 'two supplier' security, since if they tried to lessen dependence on another, it would be harder for any single company to dominate internationally. ... I guess what I really want to see is an economic war between nations, fought on the global market.

    4. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by Zackbass · · Score: 1

      Why does everyone keep saying investors will be angry as a fact when as this has been happening Google's stock price hasn't budged. In fact, the only thing that's made it move lately is the signal that the founders (the guys you seem to think will be bludgeoned) are going to be selling stock to bring their stake to less than 50%.

      --
      You gotta find first gear in your giant robot car
    5. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.

      Google isn't like other companies, the majority of shares are still held by the founders, at least one of whom, Brin, has had personal experience with repressive regimes growing up. They can do whatever they like.

    6. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      The problem is this false idea of 1 billion customers. Just because China has 1 billion people doesn't really mean anything. The reason is that a small percentage of them are in a position where they even could be customers.

      There are two Chinas more or less. The China you hear about in the news is the city China. Their cities, mostly along the eastern seaboard, are quite modern. This is where all the industry is and where people are seeing massive improvements in their quality of life. The rest of China? Well there people are peasants, and I use that term fairly literally. They usually don't have access to electricity and running water, much less Internet. They are living in the middle ages in very many ways. This is the majority of China.

      So while China is a large potential, they currently aren't as large as the US. There are only so many of their people that are in a position to be customers, even if they want to.

      You always have to keep that in perspective. All people are not potential customers. In Google's case, they need to have Internet access to be at all useful.

      After all, Africa also has over a billion people, yet you don't hear about the need to exploit that massive market. Why? Well because most of those billion are in no position to be customers unless your products are food and clean water and your prices are zero.

      Now, this will hopefully change in the future. We can hope that some day all of China more or less will be modern with access to modern amenities. However, we can also hope that as that happens, they'll grow to be free. As such at some time in the future, it may make sense for Google to go back to the Chinese market. Google just doesn't think it makes sense now.

      Remember that it isn't as though they are saying "Fuck China, we'll never do business there." They are just mad about what the current government is doing. In 5 or 10 years, maybe things have changed and they come back.

      In investment terms, Google may well feel that the cost of doing business in China currently exceeds the value of that business. In that case, the prudent investment is to stop, and try again later when the market is more amenable. Before my dad retired his company looked at expanding in to China. However, after a few months of research and meetings and such, they concluded that there wasn't enough of a market to justify the costs. They didn't write China off as in "We'll never sell there," they just decided that at the present time they won't be able to make money there, and thus aren't going to expand to it.

    7. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by dissy · · Score: 1

      A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.

      The only problem with your projection I see is the above statement.
      You word it as such to imply 1 billion people in a market are lost and that somehow translates to less money.

      Lets be perfectly clear here. It is not a market, it is China.
      It's not JUST 1 billion people, it's 1 billion people living in China. (No, not to imply they aren't people)

      So add up the amount of money all 1 billion Chinese people not living in a market will gain.
      I haven't done this, but I can be certain Google has done this.

      I bet Larry Page has more cash in his cars ash tray than one would get out of China in the same amount of time. It's not exactly a great loss.

      It's no different from a business looking at its lowest priced 'budget' service, and cutting out the customers that end up costing way more than anyone else in non-legit support and such. Your bottom line goes up.
      Both in that yes you lose a tiny amount of money, while at the same time not having to spend a much larger amount of money on that same 'customer'. I quote 'customer' because people that consistently COST you money are not customers. The word we have for that is liability.

      In a normal market, it is also a good thing for those people to go to your competition, as that means you will now gain more money over all due to their loss, and your competition will LOSE money due to that person changing to them. Win Win!
      Don't think the competitor part comes into play here with a whole country, but the point still stands.

      Odds are if Larry ploped down a $100 bill on the table, it would balance out their China account. And to someone like Larry, that is soda pop money in his desk drawer.
      No real loss at all.

    8. Re:I'm Not a Betting Man... by kc8apf · · Score: 1

      A controlling interest in Google is owned by the CEO and two founders. Their IPO stated that this would be the case and that public investors would be able to share in the financial gains, but not significantly in the direction or operation of the company. If those three have decided that China isn't worth it, there is little the investors can do to stop them.

      --
      kc8apf
  25. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by lkcl · · Score: 0, Troll

    ahh, that would be telling :) but seriously, you can do the google searches for "TETRA modem", "Ontology Classifier", "Knowledge Systems" for a few weeks just as well as anyone can.

    and no, i'm not "important", just reasonably persistent and intelligent.

  26. Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A..... by oDDmON+oUT · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers, Net Neutrality simmers on the legislative back burner, allowing vertically integrating ISP's to throttle traffic in cavalier and arbitrary ways, as well as allowing them to merge with content providing companies to "better serve" their customers.

    But we don't have censorship, nope. But we don't give American internet users that tube of KY which'd help it all go down so much easier.

    --
    Some days it's just not worth
    chewing through my restraints.
    1. Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dude, KY comes in a bottle.

    2. Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A..... by atheistmonk · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. I've got a tube of it next to my bed. Sometimes people ask me why I've got toothpaste on my table. Don't ask me what I use it for.

    3. Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the treaty that is being negotiated in secret that will have a three strikes provision to ban you completely from the Internet.

    4. Re:Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers,

      Customers have to buy something.

  27. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by lkcl · · Score: 0, Troll

    i know. amazing, isn't it. i put it down to being realistic and mentioning the phrase "statistical sample of one", and specifically mentioning that it's "personal experience and observation" rather than "fact". if i'd said "it's a fact! because i said so!" then quite rightly i'd be called out as being a nut-job and a dick.

  28. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by TiberiusMonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.

    You're either amazingly important, simply summarising a very long painful process up in a few words for the sake of keeping an internet post shortish or you're basically lying...

  29. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    /. has one of the best censorship systems in existence. Troll mods will rescue us all!

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  30. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An analogy like your comparison of China and US: Sweden's government is EVIL!! They KILLED people! The Third Reich was equally EVIL!! Because they also KILLED people!

  31. US also censors the internet, by law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the U.S. public endorses it.

    Even when people painstakingly obey the laws, the US government has been known to arrest them and throw them in prison. I know of at least two cases where law-abiding American dissidents were arrested or attacked by American agents OVERSEAS because they publicly spoke out against the status quo.

    And the American public continues to hate no one so much as kind, gentle men who love children. Worse than terrorists, you know, because terrorists only kill people, they don't LOVE CHILDREN.

    Love is very bad, you know. Must outlaw it.

  32. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by lkcl · · Score: 0, Troll

    /. has one of the best censorship systems in existence. Troll mods will rescue us all!

    :) whew, thank god: for a minute there i was worried that people might think i was being serious. instead, fortunately, people think i'm seriously promoting "myself" and deliberately saying things just for the sake of causing trouble.

    paraphrasing aldous huxley: facts don't go away just because you ignore them.

    the trouble is that empirical evidence - especially that of personally-experienced evidence and thus the conclusions that can be derived from those personal experiences - _can_ be ignored...

  33. If only they blocked twitter by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Funny

    Then I would have found my new home :P

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:If only they blocked twitter by LS · · Score: 1

      It IS blocked in China.

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  34. Re:How about the Black Fleet? by magbottle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You doofus.

    It's the Black Foot nation. A native american tribe. They have not conducted international naval military action for some time, and certainly never in operations against China.

    US Black Feet indeed.

  35. Re:How about the Black Fleet? by Kneo24 · · Score: 1

    I would venture to guess you got a "troll" mod because you didn't provide any relevant links. If it's well known in some part of the world, some part of the world as big as China anyway, I somehow doubt it wouldn't be on the Internet.

  36. china don't act like your feelings are hurt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the rest of the world will follow and leave that communistic country back in the dark ages.
    Instead of propping up the government maybe the world will start to do actually do something about it..

  37. US is banning internet poker by mestar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wait, is that the same US that banned the internet poker? Now it wants something called "freedom"?

    Says one thing does the other?

    1. Re:US is banning internet poker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be clear here the US didn't ban online poker. They are banning internet gambling and the law isn't even in effect yet.
      They also didn't setup a firewall to block internet gambling, it's just not going to be legal to do so.

    2. Re:US is banning internet poker by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      Internet poker was cut off for violating gambling laws. You're more than welcome to play poker online all you want if there's no money involved.

      Acceptable complaints about free speech in America (on the internet anyway) include:
      Child Pornography (unpopular)
      Beastiality (unpopular)
      Piracy (see above, not actually censorship)

    3. Re:US is banning internet poker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are many different viewpoints in any society. At least in the US we encourage the discussion of these viewpoints, even in an uncivilized maner. Gambling is an action in which money changes, it's no longer censorship but preventing an action.

      Blocking kiddie porn is actually censorship, I for one would be happy if it were entirely eliminated. However I understand the "Free speech" side of not heavily prosecuiting anyone but the creators of it, the people that actually performed the illegal activity of degrading the children, but only if their society specifies that it's illegal. American culture isn't the only culture, and there are certainly cultures in the world that don't bother to hide the same areas of their bodies. Under current law, I believe that even people with a decent archive of National Geographic magazines could potentially be prosecuted.

      Actions taken by citizens are very different from exchange of information and ideas.

    4. Re:US is banning internet poker by Al+Dimond · · Score: 1

      It's fair to say that governments of the USA (including state governments) have been pretty crazy about online poker, what with arresting executives in airports and such. I'm not OK with the idea that if you open up shop on the Internet you have to block your service to anyone in a particular political jurisdiction at the request of its government, or else become a criminal there. Maybe it's not that hard for the whole US, but states have arrested online gambling execs as well (Kentucky, IIRC, was one). And that's pure madness. It's like the situation where pornographers are prosecuted for violating "community standards" in po-dunk towns they've never set foot in. And so the most prudish and repressive standards rule the land. If you're doing something controversial you'd better keep a good list of where you can't travel!

      At least that's how it works for freedom of speech. For consumer protections, companies operating across state lines typically only have to follow the laws where they're incorporated. So they most permissive standards rule the land. Funny how that works.

    5. Re:US is banning internet poker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its called having your cake... and eating it too!

      *I'm a little bit country.. and I'm a little bit rock'n'roll-ah!

    6. Re:US is banning internet poker by Neoprofin · · Score: 1

      The actions taking against the the execs may be harsh, but I still don't see how you think it has anything at all to do with freedom of speech. Those execs violated gambling laws, whether the courts had proper jurisdiction to act as they did is a matter for judges and lawyers, not a 1st amendment violation.

  38. google should block china by mr_musan · · Score: 0

    the way this argument is going google should take the bluf and block chinas access to gmail, this way the chinese people will see that something is going on and the chinese government will lose face, because as it is now googles side is simply not reported in china if they take the first step and redirect chinese traffic to a site explaing how f**ked up the censorship is then the proper gander will fail, because as it is now gmail accounts are advertised on the beijing subway ! imagen stopping all of that !

  39. fuck China! by FudRucker · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    to hell with China, this is coming from a nation that puts lead paint on children's toys, makes jewelry for teenagers out of cadmium, makes infant formula with poison in it just to pass a test so they can sell it, makes pet food poisonous too, no telling what else that slipped through under the radar, so fuck china i hope they all die a miserable death!

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:fuck China! by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      ped through under the radar, so fuck china i hope they all die a miserable death!

      Thats harsh and absurd. Sure the Chinese GOVERNMENT is corrupt and evil, but lets face it most of them are. China's is just near the far end of the scale. Vote with your wallet (when you can-not always possible) and lobby with your voice and feet. China in the end is merely propped up by the endless shit we buy from them

  40. Peace-loving democracies all around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cold war flashback! Nobody censors, everybody simply enforces just and reasonable laws. It's all for the people, not against them. If only we could make a stand for freedom, but we have so many skeletons in the closet that we have to tread lightly. Sigh.

  41. Re: Censorship in the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of course, nobody's told Mrs Clinton that, before she began getting righteous, which is very embarrassing for her and for the U.S. government she's representing. it also puts the comments made by the Chinese Government into perspective: namely that the Chinese Government know damn well that the U.S. Government also performs Internet Censorship; Ma Zhaoxu is simply calling things "as they are".

    Yes, sadly China has a very good argument when they are criticized for censoring the Internet: Denmark censors their Internet. Australia censors their Internet. The US censors their Internet. Norway covertly tortures people who write the wrong thing on the Internet. And on and on. This gives China the very good argument "Why are you picking on us, everybody censors their Internet". The EU and the US can't really say anything as long as they are covertly doing the same thing.

  42. China or Australia? by lindseyp · · Score: 1

    "Australia on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-Australia relations. Clinton's speech and Australia's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in Australia by ending censorship of its Australian search engine. Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in Australia altogether. On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked, she said. Australian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize Australia.' Australia's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google."

    --
    j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
  43. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    Let's keep a sense of scale. Guantanamo Bay, and a lot going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, is awful and the information tightly controlled. But given that China willingly and effectively censors political speech and porn, but is unwilling or unable to do anything about the 99% spam email coming from their domains, is an indication that they can't be bothered with censoring criminal behavior. They only censor political or politically embarrassing behavior.

  44. What about American firms, Mrs. Clinton? by yuna49 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Evidence continues to surface about American and other Western firms cooperating with repressive governments in their efforts to censor and eavesdrop on their citizens. Why didn't Mrs. Clinton mention them in her speech?

    We have, for instance, Cisco, Nokia/Siemens, Microsoft, and Yahoo, just to name a few.

  45. Hah! by Shatteredstar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    HAH! I love how China acts like they are innocent and all. "China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google."" Riiiight. I'm also the Queen of England! China would NEVER hack anyone. The Chinese government is one of the biggest fattest LIARS ever. They constantly say one thing while time and time again they prove that they don't care about anyone's benefit but their own. Whether it is manipulating trade markets and currancy, hacking, controlling the people of the country, human rights issues, etc. Yet whenever confronted they are all "You can't tell us what to do" or "we don't do that!" or "We will change things." but what changes? Exactly nothing. They might sweep it under the rug or shift things around but nearly every time the SAME issue comes right back up. The world needs to basically tell China to stuff it and come back when they learn their lesson. Stop manufacturing stuff in China, stop buying Chinese goods, the whole nine yards. Put the squeeze on them till they show their hand.

    --
    I do what I must because of what I must do.
  46. China DDoS by Your+Anus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Given China's bottleneck of a firewall, I am surprised it hasn't been DDoS'ed. Routing their entire country through one node is an exploit just ripe for an attack.

    --

    In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    1. Re:China DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They have several nodes going over the border, but they are all under common governmental control and hooked up to identical centrally-managed censorship equipment. A mixture of DNS filtering, IP filtering, and stateless TCP resetting filters.

    2. Re:China DDoS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think there is only one route from china to the rest of the world? Copying the firewall configuration shouldn't be much of a problem...

    3. Re:China DDoS by kc8apf · · Score: 1

      Which, along with the inability for a single piece of even specialized networking gear to handle the bandwidth for an entire country, is why it isn't done that way. Firewalls can easily be sharded, load balanced, and put into failover configurations.

      --
      kc8apf
  47. Time for some diplomatic pressure by russotto · · Score: 1

    New announcement from the Secretary of State: The Secretary of State will say what she wishes about Internet Freedom. And if Ma Zhaoxu continues to object, the State Department is NOT going to send the Secretary of State's husband over with the Dallas Cowgirls and a few cases of cigars. That is all.

    1. Re:Time for some diplomatic pressure by querist · · Score: 1

      Clinton's only going to bring BACK cigars. They can get Cuban cigars in China. I brought some American cigars for a friend one time and he asked me about Cuban cigars, and it took the next 20 minutes to explain the embargo and why you cannot buy Cuban cigars in the USA. (I do not smoke, but he does.) Marlboros are very popular over there, by the way, so if you have Chinese colleagues in China who smoke, bring a carton of Marlboros and you'll do well.

    2. Re:Time for some diplomatic pressure by russotto · · Score: 1

      If you really think Bill Clinton has any trouble getting Cuban cigars (likely absolutely legally), you're incredibly naive. The people in power always have loopholes for themselves. Anyway, the special thing about Clinton's cigars isn't where they were made, it's what he does with them.

  48. Minä puhun suomea ja asun Shanghaissa by mangu · · Score: 1

    It's not that anyone from China understands the language anyway.

    With something like 1.35 billion people you can bet someone there speaks your language.

  49. FREE and OPEN!!! (so we can spy on you) by breagerey · · Score: 1

    Hillary's "freedom of information" masturbatory rhetoric is aimed at people who know a little but not too much. It has a different ring when coupled with the knowledge that the US govt has colluded with US providers to eavesdrop on people.

    Eavesdropping and censoring aren't the same thing - but knowing that somebody is monitoring your "free and open" Internet access makes it feel a bit less "free and open".

  50. Re:How about the Black Fleet? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese. That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet

    Wait, the US was about to invade the Republic of China, but then the People's Republic of China defended them? The same People's Republic of China that doesn't regard the Republic of China as a legitimate state? This is about as likely as the USA intervening to protect North Korea from invasion by China, so there's a good reason why it wasn't in the news.

    But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating. Loosing a whole fleet to China, them walking away without a scratch, as if they had performed a show.

    A US battleship has a typical crew complement of around 2,000. A fleet will be at least ten ships, so that's 20,000 members of the navy. And yet, none of the families of these dead soldiers mentioned anything to the news? No one noticed a load of naval vessels never returned to port? Russia's spy satellites, which track all surface fleet movements of both China and the US, didn't notice a US fleet disappearing and didn't mention it to the press to score political points?

    There is lots of stuff happening in the world that would embarrass the USA and the west in general. But none of it hits the news-stands over here

    Have you ever read the news? There's lots of stuff that embarrasses the USA in it every day. Most recently it was coverage of their meeting with Pakistan.

    And where is that guy that transformed the good old telephone network to a high-speed digital IP-network?

    It's now widely deployed. It's called ADSL.

    I worked with him at the time

    ...but you can't remember his name

    till the USA threatened to nuke the Netherlands if he ever got a hand on his money. A nice personal message from then president Clinton.

    Right, President Clinton threatened to use nuclear weapons against a country that has a mutual defence treaty with at least two other nuclear powers and they just backed down? There was no diplomatic outrage?

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  51. And China is right in doing so by noddyxoi · · Score: 1

    First when you're a guest you have to play by the house rules. And China can't handle CIA sponsored like Iran or Venezuela had. So for the greater good bye bye google.

    1. Re:And China is right in doing so by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First when you're a guest you have to play by the house rules.

      What does that have to do with China hacking servers in another country?

    2. Re:And China is right in doing so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If humans did that, we'd still be living in caves, afraid to attack the "leader" whose only qualification is being the son of the previous one, stoning people just because he feels like it.

      So let's not play by the house rules. Let's liberate China. Even if it needs to be done one Chinese at a time, and even if it will probably result in bloodshed. We are better than the Chinese state, and we are not fucking ashamed that we believe in freedom. Likewise we're not ashamed to say that not stoning women makes the west better.

      And to be honest, if the CIA wants to kill Chavez (which I don't think is true with president gutless). Chavez wants to be dictator of the world, and kill scores of people. I don't know about you, but I'd be rooting for the CIA. Chavez deserved death for what he did even before he entered politics. And frankly, so does Ahmadinejad, Khatami and a whole lot of others in the Iranian government. I hope the demonstrators succeed in hanging them from the highest available pole, along with any woman in black chador (you know, the islamic dress "secret police"). We all know this will make the world a better place. A MUCH better place.

    3. Re:And China is right in doing so by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Just like in the US, gov't prosecutor's generally don't find that their colleagues in other departments [particularly at the same level of gov't, like say, the US Department of Justice and the FBI] do anything that rises to the level of "illegal", as in, "prosecuted in court" or even "fired".

      Governments around the world all tend to own/control the criminal justice system in their jurisdiction, and it rarely is pointed back at that same government. Now, it gets pointed at lower levels of gov't all the time, but rarely at the 'state' level government.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  52. Slashdot Is also censoring my comments by noddyxoi · · Score: 1

    In the way that they are rated 1 / 5 after i write them and nobody reads them.

  53. Freedom “vital” except music downloadi by David+Gerard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Remarks by US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton on the occasion of the massive hacker attack on US companies by an unspecified national entity. Translated for your convenience.

    On Monday, a seven-year-old girl in Port-au-Prince was pulled from the rubble after they sent a text message calling for help. The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

    Amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can energize a city or destroy it, the same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to ruthlessly copy American songs and movies in “M-P-Three” format.

    Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. No — they must be able to give their full name and credit card number and put them on the Internet as well. A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity — one cell phone in a remote community can enable people previously unavailable access to Monsanto seeds.

    On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress — but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas, paid for at 99 cents — I’m sorry, $1.29 — a song. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.

    Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence or copyright violation, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, downloading songs at a furious rate, and setting their sights on cracking the patriotic protection of Blu-Ray discs. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities.

    States, terrorists, downloaders and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of paid information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, our civil society and our economy.

    Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be China signing the ACTA treaty like our campaign donors want them to.

    The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users to be protected from being able to download any song ever released, any time, anywhere, risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.

    So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up and pay the going rate for a licence not a sale see end user license agreement of a song in a given format on a given device. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the iTunes store by walls of censorship.

    --
    http://rocknerd.co.uk
  54. Operation freedom by Via_Patrino · · Score: 1

    Those people really lack diplomacy, freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.

    I don't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs, sending spam, prostitution, DMCA, ...

    Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community, like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.

    Surely China's censorship is outrageous but US needs to make a point: What exactly are you talking about? How that compares to others country sovereignty and general laws?

    This kind of "freedom speech" is just for the internal audience.

  55. China's laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ''China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy"

    China's constitution also says all sorts of interesting things, such as freedom of religious worship, freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, association, etc. (Look up the "four bigs" and Article 35). The ability to exercise those rights is rather limited. Really, the whole thing reads like some kind of bad joke.

    Let's just say that the implementation and enforcement of China's laws leaves much to be desired, and when the law is inconveniently contrary to the wishes of the dictators in charge, they change or ignore the laws more or less at will (including the constitution). So, I'll be impressed when the Chinese government actually uses the laws against "hacking and violations of citizens' privacy" to track down and bring to justice the people responsible for this episode of widespread corporate espionage. No credit for anything less. Unless met by appropriate action, these laws are just words on a page, like the "rights" that exist in the Chinese constitution.

    I suppose someone will pipe up and say that isn't much different from some western countries, but at least we're allowed to openly talk about and protest the fact, and the expression of the problem isn't quite so egregious.

  56. yea by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Harm US/China relations? We hate China... China hates us. They are stealing our jobs, subverting our government, having into our military instillation and business systems... stealing our intilectual property, subverting our monetary system by artificially manipulating their currency. They're dumping toxins into the air and water, not to mention into the toys and babyfood they sell us. They financially support North Korea, one of the countrys most likely to be involved in whatever event eventually destroys the world. How on earth could we do anything to harm relations with China? And how could access to the internet somehow make their citizens any more aware of what a bunch of asshats their government officials are?

    1. Re:yea by toriver · · Score: 1

      They are not stealing your jobs, your psychopathic companies are giving the jobs away. There is a difference.

      "Intellectual property", apart from being a neologism for when laws intended to promote culture and science are abused to protect big business, is just a State-granted monopoly, and the U.S. did not respect foreign IP rights in the beginning either.

      When Americans start to pay the "premium" for manufacturing at home instead of choosing the cheap, toxic, Chinese alternative, you will have a point.

  57. The rule of law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China may have laws but they have no one who actually implements them. The police are uneducated and corrupt. They know nothing and extremely bribable. The officials are often quite corrupt and bribable. Yes there are corruption call in lines but that's just useful for the communist party intel people to give intel to their buddies so they can leverage corrupt politicians and officials. Then there is the communist party and govt who make all the rules and follow none of them.

    You cannot have rule of law til the govt must follow the very same rules that impose on everyone else. This will not happen in China for at least another 20 to 30 years because it also requires societal change. Society has to expect rule of law, and currently they don't. Most people don't realize it but China is self-ruled at a social level and it is the communist party who fights against this social rule for power over China.

    If you doubt any of this, buy a ticket to Beijing and learn some Mandarin.

  58. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Smallpond · · Score: 1

    Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for tetra modem

    Random checks on first few pages show no issues.

    Troll

  59. America is in the wrong by Reilaos · · Score: 1

    We all should know that preemptive use of Hilary Clinton is against everything we stand for. This is the worst thing since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/u_s_condemned_for_pre_emptive_use

  60. QUIT PLAYING AROUND by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just boot China out of the WTO and drop their MFN with America. Look, CHina is NOT going to give freedom's to their citizens. Their move towards capitalism was to prevent their citizens from revolting. There is ZERO intention of ever restoring their freedoms. OTH, China is in a cold war with the rest of the west, and most likely with the world. Their goal is control. Even now, they had LEGAL obligations under MFN AND WTO, to which they have not honored any of it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  61. That was hardly "slamming" by jonnat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It was, instead, a very crude (embarrassing, for western standards) attempt at Orwellian revisionism substantiated by a direct threat. Their claim that Clinton's comments contradict their constitution just shows how worthless that piece of paper is under a dictatorship.

  62. Re:How about the Black Fleet? by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

    Like China is the only part of the world where censorship is in action. In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese. That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet. At least the part of the Internet over here. In China this is all well known. But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating.

    Hmm... 2003? I seem to remember the US Navy having its hands full with something else in 2003.

    Seriously, the US military was stretched seriously thin in 2003. I'm not in on high level military strategy meetings, but I somehow doubt that the US had a spare fleet kicking around for anything. (Especially one that they weren't going to replace. Believe me, if the Navy started ordering a new fleet of ships, we'd know about it.)

    And finally, what good would conquering Taiwan be to the US? They don't have appreciable natural resources or particularly strategic territory. Their main export is electronic components, which we already get from them extremely cheaply. The reason Taiwan is important to the US to the extent that it is is because of some combination of "They piss of China, and the US government doesn't like the Chinese government" and "The US supports free people everywhere."

    Finally, Wikipedia has a page on the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, where a lot of ridiculously tenuous links made by people with actual death squads are listed. Whatever else you may think of Wikipedia, it doesn't have a pro-US bias. Pro-US censorship is not employed on Wikipedia. It also doesn't have an article on this Black Fleet nonsense you're spouting.

  63. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

    It's pretty sad how the first thing that came to mind was "Country's educated despised and not trusted by majority, uneducated. But first in a new study, scientists have discovered water is wet..."

    I guess humanity, as a whole, just doesn't trust people more educated than they are.

  64. Bring back the premium products, we'll pay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When American business start charging the "premium" for manufacturing toys without lead or cadmium, or baby food without antifreeze, Americans will be ready to pay!

    I'm beside myself with rage that I cannot find anything that's made in America that resembles what I'm asking for. Search for American made toys, and you'll find toys made of wood. Great, now my 2 year old gets splinters in her throat instead of lead poisoning. For a technologically advanced nation, it's insane that we can't produce safe childrens products that people in a middle-class income bracket can pay for.

  65. Welcome to Cold War 2.0 by istartedi · · Score: 1

    If it's a battle of proxies, rather than a battle of proxy wars, it might not be so bad.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  66. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by siride · · Score: 1

    I did said Google searches and everything turned up just fine. Perhaps you aren't being censored, but rather your internet connection sucks?

  67. How disingenuous is this... by moxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many US politicians, corporations and intelligence agecnies loooove to talk about how China should allow internet freedom, while at the same time they're looking for ways to curtail our freedom online over here. Their whole wet dream is for the US internet to be like China's.

  68. 6 Feet Under... by flyneye · · Score: 1

    6 feet underground, Henry Kissinger is tapping morse code on the casket lid, "Let me out, that fatass cow is going to get you all killed yet".

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  69. Hacking and censorship are one and the same by TimTucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From my perspective, hacking and censorship are one and the same issue here.

    Those who want to express opinions that the ruling party doesn't want people to hear are the targets of hacking. In this case, hacking is just the means of censorship.

    Get rid of the mindset that censorship is OK and you get rid of the motivation behind the hacking.

    1. Re:Hacking and censorship are one and the same by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that much of the espionage is actually conducted against engineering (especially defense) firms, who are not distributors of anti-Party opinion but rather developers of technology that the CCP & friends want.

      Of course, to be honest now I'm just repeating shit I've read in the media, and god knows how much any of that can be trusted.

  70. Sounds like the Chinese Gov't is feeling insecure by shoor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm no expert on China, but when people start getting this touchy, it usually means they sense they're in trouble.

    --
    In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
  71. Google has BACKED DOWN in China by hackingbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled Chinese search result filtering in Google.cn despite of the lack of real actions from the Chinese government in the few two days, but /. editors keep refusing to put this relevant in the front page. This story casts a doubt on Google's stance, motive and commitment. Right, how can we be critical of our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom" and fighting the "evil" China? How can a hero backing down to the evil? Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does. How could the evil have not taken any real evil action on this particular matter? It would hurt our national morale, and so we should do self-censoring and forbidding to put it in the front page of any Western media outlet.

    (Even your WSJ story does not mention that google has re-enabled filtering; while every Western media reported the (now temporary) suspension after Google announcement. It is oversea Chinese media that reported it and I picked up and verified with the exact same Chinese query I tried right after their temporary suspension back then.)

    1. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by Ihmhi · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Mod parent up.

      If Google really turned around on their stance, then /. should post an article about it.

    2. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your evidence is weak and your announcement is premature. I don't understand Chinese, so I can't verify your links, but even assuming that your description is accurate, and certain phrases are still being censored in google.cn searches, it doesn't necessarily mean anything. Google never set an explicit time table for withdrawing censorship and/or pulling out of China. That tells me that their decision is preliminary...they want to see how the Chinese government reacts, and are willing to make a compromise agreement if the Chinese are. Re-enabling censorship does not necessarily mean this is over.

      Incidentally, the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has "backed down" suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over.

    3. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      You keep touting that in every article and the fact is that when we look if it's true we find uncensored results so people do not believe what you say. It's not any form of censorship by /. or we the readers, just that maybe your proxies or other way of doing the search are giving you censored results.

      Maybe if you point us to some news site providing prof that censorship it's re-enabled? Some insiders info? I'd be the first to vote up your submission because THATS NEWS.

    4. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by hackingbear · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sitting here in California, USA w/o using any proxy. You can try the above link. If you don't read Chinese, try google of that link: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.cn%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Dzh-CN%26source%3Dhp%26q%3D%25E5%2585%25AD%25E5%259B%259B&sl=zh-CN&tl=en Try that in the States. You should see the results ahve little to do with the June 4 event and the translated text "According to local laws, regulations and policies, some search results are not shown."

      And the bigger problem I have is that none of the English media wants to post this in their front page. I can only read it from oversea/HK media. If that's not bias and agenda, what it is.

    5. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by wigaloo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please mod off-topic.

      Look at hackingbear's comment history. He is repeatedly posting this comment, often to completely unrelated stories.

      Hackingbear, we get that you are upset by this. However, this kind of trolling is not helpful, and only serves to undermine discussion of other topics -- topics that also happen to be of interest to the rest of us. Try this again instead. But don't be surprised if your story gets rejected with the very first link to a page written in Chinese.

    6. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This isn't exactly off-topic in a story where half of the comments are written assuming that Google willingly pulled out of China, or at least that it's likely to proceed with that. In fact, just as I'm writing this reply, the comment that follows yours starts with "If Google, because etics, is willing to lose such market as China ...".

      It may well be off-topic in other stories to which he had posted this, but this damn sure isn't off-topic in this one.

    7. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by wigaloo · · Score: 1

      It may well be off-topic in other stories to which he had posted this, but this damn sure isn't off-topic in this one.

      True enough. If there was a spam moderation, I would have suggested that instead.

    8. Re:Google has BACKED DOWN in China by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, the fact that Chinese media are reporting that google has "backed down" suggests that the Chinese government wants everybody to THINK this is over.

      Well , it wouldn't be the first time. You understand Chinese better than you think.

  72. But should china stop the hacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought of this mostly in jest, but then I'm not sure anymore, but let's imagine that we have tech-savvy Chinese individuals who's only access to unfettered information is out there, somewhere on the Internet, but direct access to it is blocked, monitored, or otherwise frowned upon (if not quite risky).

    What if these guys figured out that the best way to get the info, is to use some sort of random proxy, so to speak, such that the data is good, and such that this relaying host may not garner too much interest form the great firewall...

    Wouldn't the best way to do that involve pwning other people's computers, outside of China? Would blocking all traffic from China actually result in helping a regime bent on massaging its subject's perception of reality? Wouldn't allowing this traffic be the democratic thing to do?

    I guess that's why so many don't update windows or refuse to install IE8, right? They're just trying to help a brother out! ;)

  73. Hillary the China-Hater strikes again by superyanthrax · · Score: 0, Troll

    How will she backpedal this time after we make menacing statements on how reliable we think T-Bonds are? How will Obama clean up her mess?

    If you want to get real progress on the real issues between China and the United States (i.e. NOT HUMAN RIGHTS), keep Hillary out of it. We'd like to discuss and make progress on those issues but not when Hillary the irrational China-Hater is out there spewing garbage about "human rights".

  74. Cut the Phone Lines by b4upoo · · Score: 0

    Until China straightens out its human rights issues we should bar all communications of any type with China as well as all trade. Frankly buying products made in China supports a form of slavery that is not acceptable at all. Governments of this type are haters and enemies of humanity.

  75. Don't be such a cynic by WML+MUNSON · · Score: 1

    In order to win the net neutrality fight, we will need to to educate the general population on the reasons why it matters to them, and national officials making highly publicised speeches like Hillary Clinton's go a long way toward that goal.

    Also, Hillary Clinton publicly stating that we'll support anti-censorship tools on a national level is a huge diplomatic middle finger to China in direct response to the Google situation.

    I, for one, am extremely proud of both Google and my government's handling of this situation so far.

  76. end free trade agreements w/repressive governments by Dreben · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is far past time to stop free trade agreements with countries of repressive governments. They are destroying the economies of the rest of the world.

  77. Yep Yep ... by golodh · · Score: 1
    But of course!

    If you're a "guest" in a country ruled by a one-party dictatorship that doesn't like people to see (legitimate) views that aren't necessarily the ones the state-controlled news agencies and state-approved opinion leaders dish up, then yes.

    They will naturally take a dim view of you if you allow their citizens to learn about those dissenting opinions. You have to abide by their "house" rules that you don't let their citizens have access to uncontrolled information.

    Oh yes, of course any rumours about systematic, large-scale, well-coordinated cyberwarfare dressed up as "random hacker activity" are just samples of malicious slander, yep? And if you're hosting an e-mail service and find your systems subjected to systematic attack from "hackers" (who just happen to target email accounts of regime critics), that too is no more than a big spiky everyday coincidence, yep? And making noise about being hacked like that is impolite, yep?

    You've gotta be soooo careful to "abide by their rules". We all understand that, don't we? Yep Yep !

  78. Censorship is unnecessary. by fugue · · Score: 1
    Why bother censoring? All you need to do is flood us with so much information, or information of such sophistication, that we can't hope to read it all or evaluate it effectively. Teaching people to put a higher value on pride (not losing face) than on learning completes the obviation of censorship: we will only read what we want to read.

    Look at how well that works in the USA: we all have access to the facts about global warming and mercury and abortion and health care and bribery and this-and-that, and yet there is still "debate" because there's always someone else publishing whatever the hell you want to believe.

    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

    --
    "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
  79. Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. by Conzar · · Score: 1
    The USA Does censor: Child Porn, Classified USA Documents, E-Currency sites (can't operate in the USA), Online Casinos (again, can't operate in the USA), and bittorrent sites (operating in the US). The USA has many laws that prohibit information from being transmitted (freely) on the internet. This my friends is censorship.

    So when

    Clinton unveiled U.S. initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption.

    Does this mean that when the USA government shuts down your internet connection for using bittorent, that you can use this to undermine the gov?