Chinese Human Rights Orgs Hit By DDoS

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "IDG News Service is reporting that several human rights organizations focusing on China have been hit by DDoS attacks this weekend, including Chinese Human Rights Defenders and Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch. The latter works on issues of mental persecution (dissidents being thrown into mental hospitals where they were forced onto medication or beaten with electric batons) and eminent-domain type problems (seizure of farmland or urban land without compensation when the government is working on a project)."

Comments

Seriously?

[Pojut]

Think it was the chinese again?

I wonder what a full-blown revolt in China would look like nowadays...there are so many people living in that country, it would be insane.

Re:Seriously?

[ZuluZero]

Maybe it was the /. community, duped into a DOS attack to RTFA ;-)

Re:Seriously?

[denis-The-menace]

If they give them all TV sets that should be enough to pacify enough of them so that revolts don't happen.

It works great in developed countries.

Re:Seriously?

[LWATCDR]

Why would they revolt?
The have it better now than anytime in their history. Sure a few may come to the US and the EU but they will see the improvements that they have been making over time and expect them to continue.

Not to mention that they are proud that went from being a third world nation to a super power in a generation.
I don't like the way things work in China but if you look back to how they worked before I think you will see that a DOS and great firewall are progress compared to the cultural revolution.

Re:Seriously?

[sopssa]

And what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture and how the country works overnight? That must end well. Remember that the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese. I don't think the country could manage a huge change.

Re:Seriously?

[betterunixthanunix]

"The have it better now than anytime in their history."

Some have it better now. There are a billion people living in China, and only a minority have access to the improved standards of living that you are referring to. This is pretty much how things were in the Soviet Union: some people were better off, but most were either in the same position they were in before the revolution or in an even worse position as a result of the government's policies.

Sorry, I know that the Reagan/Thatcher concept is popular, but increased trade does not always bring a higher standard of living to every single citizen or even to a majority of citizens.

Re:Seriously?

[ilsaloving]

The parent has been marked funny, but I would argue that their statement is more true than most people realize.

Entertainment has a long history of use by oppressive regimes to give people something easy to focus on, and taking focus away from the terrible policies said regimes put in place.

Hell, the US has lost so many basic human rights in the last decade, that I'm amazed a civil war *didn't* break out. But hey... as long as people get to have their reality TV shows, it's all good, right?

Re:Seriously?

[steelfood]

No mods, not informative.

"First World" refers to the US, Western Europe, and allies. "Second World" refers to the Soviets and their allies. China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."

Since the fall of the USSR, the "Second World" doesn't really exist, though the countries that made up the Eastern Bloc, including most of Eastern Europe, could be said to have been in the "Second World."

Re:Seriously?

[Rolaulten]

Even then using the terminology of 'first' 'second' and 'third' world countries is sliding around the truth. What is more apt to say is that there are developed (eg most of the EU, US, etc), developing (China, India, countries experiencing industrial growth) and un-developed countries.

Re:Seriously?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Remember that the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese.

While I agree, in general, with your statement, it should be pointed out that the current Chinese government is also responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. While I personally think the Soviet Union still holds the title for Killing the Largest Number of Your Own People, the Chinese are running a close second.

Re:Seriously?

[sp3d2orbit]

what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture

The current political leaders aren't "Chinese culture". Chinese culture is represented by thousands of years of history, not the last few decades. In fact, Taiwan has a better link to Chinese "culture" than mainland China as that government is older.

What would they revolt for? Stability. Authoritarian regimes are unstable. Authoritarian regimes don't allow for pressure release valves causing tensions to build and build and build until they explode, like they are in the Western Provinces.

the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese

I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are an agent of the Chinese government. But, let me remind you that 1) the current government started a civil war to gain power 2) killed over 30 million people during the cultural revolution and 3) continue to kill people to this day for speaking out for human rights.

I don't think the country could manage a huge change.

The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom. It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.

Re:Seriously?

[idontgno]

Panem et circences.The Romans had that figured out millenia ago. Great way to keep the plebs quiet and pliant.

Re:Seriously?

[tibman]

Don't forget that the Chinese Army is made up of Chinese Citizens. Some may fire on their own people when told to.. but i'll bet some will fire on those giving the orders as well.

Re:Seriously?

[stygianguest]

The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom.

Although I understand where the sentiment comes from, the statement is utter nonsense. Your point would be better served by leaving it out. I don't want to argue whether 'western' culture, whatever that might be, has seen more or less changes over the last few thousand years. My point is that comparing the histories of ill defined societies by equally unclear measures, is not helpful in any way.

It should suffice to say, that 'the Chinese' peoples have proven to be quite adaptable in the past, and there is little reason to assume they would be different now. Besides, China is currently undergoing enormous changes on pretty much all areas, except perhaps in the political system.

It serves then right.

[jellomizer]

Those damn Liberal Commies... Uhh.. Wait.. Ummm.......

Re:It serves then right.

[0123456]

Those damn Liberal Commies... Uhh.. Wait.. Ummm.......

Commies have generally spent more time fighting each other than the people who are supposedly their enemies. Stalin may have been a psychopath, but it's a safe bet that more than a few of the people he stabbed in the back were planning to stab him in the back if he hadn't acted first.

Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[DigiShaman]

I really hope this DDoS is not being sponsored by the CCP. I mean seriously, do they *want* to piss off the world? If this doesn't unite black-hats, I don't know what would. I stupid can a government be?!!

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[Publikwerks]

From the looks of it, I doubt they care. They are far too integrated with the world economic systems to be made a pariah of. Their biggest concern is losing control of the masses. As long as the peasants stay in line, they can sit back and not give a damn about the rest of the world.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[sopssa]

It's not only Chinese government's concern, it's all of chinese. The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls, and it would probably be bloody - history shows this. I think the citizens also understand that and think its better to live than let the bloody internal wars start again.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[brxndxn]

In order to maintain control, the Chinese government must prevent widespread unrest. In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike. In order to maintain their status in the world, they must keep growing economically. Therefore, the government keeps hording money. Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry. Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.

Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments; or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.

My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[sopssa]

Well they do know that their government is like that, the placing of flowers outside Google China offices and the popularity of Avatar (because of unintentional references to China) show that.

They aren't stupid, you know.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[__aagmrb7289]

The United States has a LOT to loose (and gain) from social unrest in China.

Think for a moment.

Do you believe that social unrest in China will be nonviolent? It won't be. There will be plenty of violence - especially if the lid is kept on too long.

Do you believe that the violence won't effect nearby nations, such as Japan, India, Korea, RUSSIA, etc.? It will. It will be deadly serious for those countries, because we are not talking about social unrest where a few people get a few guns and start shooting at people. China may not have a technologically powerful military, but they have a lot of weapons, in the hands of a lot of people, and they are plenty dangerous (these weapons include nuclear missiles, in case you've forgotten). Neighboring countries will be freaking out, to put it mildly, when the shit hits the fan. And they'll have good reason to do so, since the consequences of, and the conflict itself, will most definitely spill outside the border.

Do you believe that the United States won't get involved with the problem? Without a doubt, the United States will get itself entangled in the problem, to some degree. Even if we are constantly being told to butt out by Russia, our other allies like South Korea and Japan will be screaming for help - and we'll try to do something. We'll pour in aid. We'll fuck around in the U.N. trying to create some sort of international intervention, spending massive amounts of political capital. We'll send in troops, with various contradictory missions and poorly thought out objectives. We might be able to resist for a bit, but we'll go in. And our pundits, of course, will say it's because of the money - because Americans, above else, need clarity of purpose - it doesn't MATTER how complicated the situation is - we must simplify it to a single sentence.

And so, do you think this practically inevitable situation won't affect/hurt the United States? I think that's pretty naive. We offload a huge amount of manufacturing of our goods to China - the type of goods that keep our masses happily consuming and ignoring the what's happening in the world. We might not freak out too bad if gasoline hits $4 - but we certainly will if we can't buy a 30" TV for less than a $1000. And we react pretty badly when we demand something as a majority. We won't just get hurt economically, as prices for things considered basic commodities go up - we'll make it worse by poking ourselves, and others, in the eye.

All that said, I hope it happens. I hope the Chinese people take control of their government, grow their middle class, and build some more freedoms into the core of their political, social and moral beliefs. I'm not positive it'll happen, but I'm pretty sure that there will be some sort of explosion in that country. We'll see.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[steelfood]

Wow, ok, let me pick this apart, since it's modded +5.

In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike.

No, they have to keep the peasants busy working and trying to make money to raise their standard of living, instead of out of work and making trouble. That means they need to continue to grow and increase their middle class, or the populace won't be happy at all. Remember, it's all about standard of living, or as another guy said it, having a TV in every household.

Therefore, the government keeps hording money.

This is a non-sequitor. The government hording money does not affect the populace's standard of living. Nor does it make sense for the government to horde money to keep the populace poor if they want to keep the populace happy. If the divide between the wealthy (government) and the poor is great, there is a greater chance of unreset.

Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry.

The first part doesn't make sense. If the chinese government is hording money, they won't be buying up dollars. That's spending their money to buy dollars.

They are propping up the US economy. But they're also spending a lot of it domestically. Their entire bailout package was to throw money around to stimulate the economy. Where've you been for the past 2 years?

Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.

Non-sequitors. And they don't even make sense. In a healthy economy, everybody is growing wealthier. This is basic econ, 101. And what does investors have to do with anything?

Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments

A happy middle class is a complacent middle class. Just look to the US. Happy middle class means the government can trample over the people's rights. It's when things are bad that people start to get up in arms. Social unrest doesn't happen when everything's fine and dandy.

or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.

Which isn't happening. The Chinese government (and China in general) is prospering at the expense of the rest of the developed world. What's left of the peasant class is prospering along with everybody else.

My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.

That's a nice prediction, but it's not predicated on anything you said before. You threw around social unrest everywhere like they were some kind of key word, without neither understanding what causes social unrest, nor what social unrest actually entails.

Thanks for playing, troll. I praise your cleverness in getting yourself modded +5 despite being completely wrong about--well, almost everything. I guess it's easy to fake knowing things when you're talking to like-minded ignorant people. But anybody who knows even a morsel about the specific subject at hand will shred you apart and expose you for the troll you are.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places.

[sp3d2orbit]

The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls

You are perpetuating a fallacy. Change does not require war. In fact, the Chinese constitution already guarantees certain rights to speech, press, and assembly. The Chinese could implement democratic reforms by simply upholding their existing constitution. That would mean allowing people to speak out against the government, government officials, or government actions. That would mean allowing political rivals to run for office. That would mean not censoring the press. It does not require revolution or war.

The idea that the Chinese government provides stability is misguided, at best. Authoritarian regimes don't provide stability -- they repress. That repression leads to frustration and without adequate political safety valves that anger boils over into revolution. Authoritarian regimes create revolutions since there is no other way for the citizens to have their concerns addressed. A Chinese government that adhered to its own constitution would be much more stable than the thugs currently in power.

Chinese Gov't Public Relations

[Orleron]

After hacking Google and 34 other companies, you would think the Chinese government would lie low for a little while to let things simmer down.... not THIS.
Sheesh... a freshman in a public relations degree program would know that.

Getting rid of pesky pests

[olborro]

Hey, if it worked with Google, why not try that with human rights organizations?

Unlikely but possible alternative

[zmaragdus]

One alternative to consider, as unlikely as it may be, is this: China [already] has a really bad rep among the online communities for openness and free speech. Some third party comes along, having assembled a botnet, and wants to further smear China's name. So they tell their botnet to attack the webpages of those who oppose China's rights abuses. The world assumes it was China and hates them all the more.

Now, before a flood of hate-replies come, let me say a few things. (1) It is less likely than not that the above scenario happened. Anyone wanting to oppose China's rights abuses wouldn't attack those pages. ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.) The perpetrator would have to hate China but not care about the rights abuses. (2) I personally think that China is responsible. This post is just a small attempt to keep people thinking rationally instead of letting their emotions take over completely. (3) We probably will never truly figure out who really did it anyways.

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative

[Ziekheid]

I agree with you and I strongly disagree with you. The chance that the Chinese government had anything to do with this seems small to me and the chance of some random scriptkid with a botnet doing this is huge.
People don't seem to realize how many botnets exist worldwide and how many individuals are involved in the botnet scene, there are plenty of people that could've done this just "for the lulz" to get some media attention and not out of a political motivation.

Re:One day

[tsm_sf]

better than they where during the Cultural Revolution

Anything would be though, wouldn't it? Actually for the average "man on the ground" this is probably the best time in China's thousands year history. Doesn't mean it still doesn't suck ass.

Not surprising

[Brazilian Geek]

China is giving the world the middle finger and not giving a shit about the repercussions.

Face it, corporations are hungry for dollars and one of the only markets left for them is China and the whole Google thing proved that it doesn't matter what China does, the corporations are going to fall in line and obediently do what China wants of them. Of all the companies affected by the breech only Google has spoken out - the rest are quiet and will remain so in fear of losing precious Chinese business.

China has seen that it has nothing to fear from the corporate world - the ones that give them money. They'll do whatever they want now - taking down sites and silencing opposition will only be met with silence and their homeland population is so docile that they'll never revolt so why the fuck should they care.

But... but hacking is ILLEGAL in China!

[Arancaytar]

Shame on you, shame! Bad China! Go sit in a corner.

Oh, you don't want to sit in the corner?

You're angry we called you bad?

We're so sorry, we won't say it again. We beg your forgiveness.

-Signed, the International Community.

Divides

[mindbrane]

E.O.Wilson wrote an essay in the late 90's suggesting China is the test case for humanity's attempts to find solutions to environmental and population problems. China as a traditional agrarian male dominated culture has moved from a practise of female infanticide to using technology to abort female foetuses. From this practise a sex ratio imbalance has arisen that some see as of little current or historical importance. The nation's one-child policy could leave 24 million bachelors by the year 2020. My own readings in history have taken on views more in line from what has been learnt from the last few decades of research in primatology. Chimpanzee behaviour favouring, figuratively speaking, male oligarchies restricting access to resources maps clearly, in my mind, onto all three, still widely practised, Mediterranean death cult religions promulgating male dominated societies. Based on China's current sex ratio imbalance the questions to be addressed probably can be set in historical, anthropological and primatological contexts.

Personally I suspect China flirted with democracy, but as is nearly always the case, power structures are not given to relinquishing dominion. Recently /. ran a story that the Chinese government replaced the movie "Avatar" with a biography of Confucius. The works of Confucius are only known by way of reconstructions, but his core message seems to have been one of a familia philosophy, strongly patriarchal, and, in that light, like the Christian, Islamic and Judaic cults that I find map well onto Chimpanzee behaviour. The core mandate of such power structures is submission and tradition. I suspect the Chinese government, if not the Chinese people, are moving away from democracy and into a tradition bound version of Confucianism, but at best it's only a superficial reading.

The discussion can go on and deeper but one current salient point should be made. Chinese society is observed to be much more family orientated than our western societies. A recent rampage killing in the international press was reported on as having happened in western societies because the killer was deranged, whereas the Chinese feedback suggested the man went on a killing spree because his family wasn't there to support him. Western society is strongly vested in the rights of the individual, China not nearly so much. If the West and China and, perhaps much of Asia, are to achieve an equilibrium than we're going to have to bridge this core cultural divide from both sides.

just my loose change.

Re:But Who?

[mcgrew]

I'd think India would be more prone to want to hurt China, considering the problems with the Dali Lama and all. Or the Thais; when I was there in 1974 I never saw such hatred toward a country. Of course, China had been screwing over Thailand for a few thousand years.

We are the new gods.

Pride comes before a fall. The overlords on Wall Street are your masters, and will continue to be your masters.

Re:mod parent +6

[Omnifarious]

I'm both amused and saddened that you were modded a troll when you're speaking so much truth. The "our culture is special" argument is paraded out by the Chinese government all the time, and each time they do it it stinks a little more.

Obama did it recently too, and I lost a lot of respect for him. There's being diplomatic and there's compromising your core values. I think there was more of the latter than the former in his statements.