China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan

mormop writes "The Chinese government has praised UK Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for censoring social networking sites at times when the government feels threatened, believing it legitimizes China own behavior. Quoting Chinese state media website Global Times: 'Britain's new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.'"

Comments

+1

[That Guy From Mrktng]

You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.

Re:+1

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope politicians don't try to stall this plan, as the UK are at risk of having their oppression rating downgraded to an AA+.

now you know

[Jasoman]

Now the UK should know there doing something wrong when China Praises you for anything.

Like slavery...

[jhoegl]

Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.

Re:Like slavery...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.

That's a true position according to the laws of discussion. But the main point, IMHO, is that UK government was humiliated by this comparison, and frankly, they deserved it.

You are not helping!

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!

Seriously, how far down the road are you when you get that kind of support from China.
Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.

Re:You are not helping!

[jbernardo]

Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.

More likely, North Korea praises your criminal retributions law, expelling families from their homes because one of their members is accused (not convicted) of participating in the riots - http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/13/england-riots-coalition-response?cat=politics&type=article.

Re:You are not helping!

[mrRay720]

Expelling familes from *their* homes?

Not at all - they are homes owned by the taxpayers. If you want to be secure in a home, two useful steps would be:

1) Get a job so you can pay for your own home, instead of taking money out of the pockets of working families.

2) Don't be a criminal shitbag stealing from and killing those who pay for "your" home.

Hyperbole

[cappp]

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

Re:Hyperbole

[Nick Ives]

If enacted, those provisions would be used against dissenters just like the Terrorism Act is now.

I personally know people who've were detained under the Terrorism Act for walking through Charing Cross station with placards in their bag on the day of the royal wedding. They were released hours later and I believe are planning legal action.

You're a fool if you think laws giving those kinds of powers to police to control social media won't be used against political dissenters.

Re:Hyperbole

[bky1701]

Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right? China has plenty of qualifiers, too, you know. People who care for their freedoms shouldn't accept hollow excuses for fascism, because as history readily proves, fascists have no shortage of them. Censorship is never the right answer, no matter how many times nor how loud people argue that it is.

Further, I believe that the Prime Minister and in fact most of the House of Commons have no idea how the internet works, as the PM repeatedly talked about "media companies and social media companies that are displaying these images," as if the internet is a TV network where every site makes a conscious decision what to show. I was utterly shocked that this is the person about to (attempt to) regulate social media. Britain need to get its act together, because it is starting to look more desperate and fanatical than the US, which is a very low bar to set indeed.

Re:Hyperbole

[khallow]

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right.

It's like assurances that your teacher wears a condom at all times when they teach. The mere presence of the "qualifier" indicates something has gone wrong. The government of England has no business spending more than 30 seconds considering these actions.

Re:Hyperbole

[cappp]

Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.

That comment has in turn lead to claims of fascism, censorship et al. How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation. In this specific case those claims are, as yet, unwarranted. By all means freak out when there's a law being proposed - exercise your considerable civil liberties to their utmost - but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

Re:Hyperbole

[cappp]

Censorship with qualifiers is good, yes. Society recognizes through the law that sometimes speech has to be restricted no matter how horrifying that concept is to you or I. The important thing is to ensure that governments censor only so much speech as is absolutely necissary, and not a syllable more.

Consider that restraining orders are government sanctioned, and enforced censorship. As are all the laws related to slander and libel. Pretty much all the fraud laws too. And anything related to trade secrets. Or laws protecting privacy. So on and so forth. My point is that there are types of speech that society has recognized as necessitating some degree of restriction. What those kinds of speech are is up for debate, as is our right. That those kinds of speech exist at all is also worth discussing. But jumping to hyperbole short-circuits that conversation, and that undermines fundamental aspects of democracy as an expression of informed decision.

Re:Hyperbole

[cheekyjohnson]

but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.

Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).

Re:Hyperbole

[bky1701]

Something like the 3 strike law.

Wait, did youreally just justify one morally bankrupt idea with another?

If they're inciting violence, deal with them via other legal avenues. Free speech has never been fully respected when it comes to the excuse of "inciting violence," so there is no need to add new methods of censorship. At least if you have to charge them with something there is due process. Three strikes is just hearsay bullshit.

Re:Hyperbole

[rainer_d]

The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was

Mr. Speaker, everyone watching these horrific actions will be stuck- will be struck by how they were organized via social media. Free flow of information can be used for good, but it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the police, the intelligence services, and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people from communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.”

Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior. We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.

Jesus was tried and crucified as a criminal, too. The definition of a "criminal" varies from country to country. Don't you think the protesters in Iran weren't labeled as "criminal", too? Or the people who toppled the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia? The guys in China's KP probably can't stop laughing - with talk like this, Western political "leaders" reveal their calls for human rights in China and elsewhere as what they really are: soapbox speeches. Granted, the riots in UK didn't have a political dimension. It was "just" people who wanted to own a large plasma or LCD TV, and iPad or designer-clothes but couldn't afford any of these. But it's a slippery road and no one who actually believes in democracy and the right to protest should ever feel compared to go down that road!

Re:Hyperbole

[bky1701]

Perhaps I just realize the absurdity of all forms of censorship, and thus disagree with them. Claiming my opinions are "jumping to hyperbole" does little to change the fact that many are coming to share this stance, as more and more the excuses grow for why people should be repressed.

There is no functional requirement for any speech to be restricted. Laws against slander and libel are ineffective and constantly abused. Look up the British Chiropractic Association for an example of how these harm us all. Not to mention, their existence lends credibility to those with the ability to dodge lawsuits, who should not have any. Libel and slander protect the powerful, just like all other censorship. The fact people believe incredible information is neither justification for nor solved by censorship.

Fraud has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with money. Insofar as it might be conceived as censorship, which is in my opinion quite difficult to do, it is perhaps justified as something of a necessity in capitalist society to prevent fraud. That does not, however, justify any other censorship; just like China censoring worse than Britain doesn't justify Britain.

Trade secret laws should not exist. Privacy laws are entirely ineffective, feel-good laws, which have had no effect thus far in preventing breeches of privacy. There is also a question of if that might fall under contract law, considering terms of service, which is an entirely different matter.

So please, explain how I am "jumping to hyperbole" rather than making a conscious values judgement. Just because the majority of society accepts it doesn't make it right. Society has been wrong many times before.

Re:Hyperbole

[Totenglocke]

Well the police and citizens should be armed. Things wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as out of hand if both officers and law abiding citizens under duress were able and ready to permanently end a rioters looting spree.

Re:Hyperbole

[jpapon]

You do realize that means rioters would be armed too, right?

So instead of throwing rocks and burning cars, London could be the setting for a Wild West shootout. What an improvement!

Re:Hyperbole

[fremsley471]

...the UK is the most intense police state / surveillance society in the "free" Western countries.

That's bollocks. The UK has a load of CCTV (which seems damn ineffective looking at the results from last week) and ANPR is being aggressively installed without debate (next big liberty row ahead), but there's no separate paramilitary police (France, Germany, US National Guard [?}, et al.) or a nationwide police force under direct govt control (e.g. FBI). We almost certainly have a very advanced spying of phones and t'internet (hello GCHQ and thanks IRA)- and it's more than likely that all phone calls are monitored. But read up on Echelon; it's not just the UK.

I was in a Ventura, north of LA, a few years ago and we found out about the ATF. They came into a bar below our hotel and made the drinkers overturn their pints 'cause the ratio of alcohol/food in the bar's accounts was not the same as the licencing conditions. That's an intense police state.

Re:Hyperbole

[JockTroll]

So what? Rioters in the US have access to firearms, and yet you see no civil war in the street, just UK-level vandalism and looting. I should also point out that the Wild West was way tamer by violence standard than present day, shootouts were relatively rare and body count low. Today, the showdown at OK Corral would barely make news. And one last thing, some massive destruction in the UK would be considered an improvement by many.

Re:Hyperbole

[DrBoumBoum]

Translation for the political speech impaired:

They're looking at whether it would be right.

Meaning: we've decided to do it and are looking at a way to have the bill pass; trust us we're good at that. If all else fail there's always the good ol' and very effective "think of the children" card to play.

They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.

Meaning: we'll spy on and block each and every communication we don't like and throw you in jail for it, preventively. Then you'll enjoy working your way through the courts to challenge the administrative decision.

Re:Hyperbole

[Archtech]

Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.

That is exactly the way such politicians normally operate. Terrified of anything that might give them bad publicity or affect their popularity ratings, before they even consider doing anything they fly a kite - as Cameron did - to see what reactions it provokes.

Which is precisely why it is essential for everyone to give it a sound drubbing, point out how illiberal and repressive it would be, and mock Cameron soundly for aligning himself with the Chinese government. It won't take much of that for him to think twice, and with any luck the whole damn thing will sink without trace.

Re:Hyperbole

[Cwix]

Some might argue that protecting king and country is self defense.

Re:Hyperbole

[jpapon]

Today, the showdown at OK Corral would barely make news

Maybe in the U.S., where gun murders are more common... but in most of Western Europe three deaths by shooting would definitely make headlines.

Re:Hyperbole

[Totenglocke]

Except you're only looking at murders committed with GUNS. Violent crime in the UK is much higher per capita than in the US - the only difference is that in the UK they're using knives instead of guns. It's much harder for an average person to use a knife to defend themselves against another person wielding a knife - it's much easier for an untrained person to use a gun to defend themselves.

Re:Hyperbole

[lexsird]

Training? Are you serious? A gun is NOT a complicated mechanism. What you want is license not a right. Sorry, but the truth is it's a right. If you are so ignorant you can't figure out how a gun works, then you probably aren't reading this because you can't read. Especially Americans, we have guns for breakfast, lunch and supper hear, we sleep with them under our pillows, we put them in our cars, in our cartoons, we have toy guns for when we are kids, our games have guns, our computer games have lots and lots of guns. Our TV shows have guns from as far back as we can remember, how about our movies? Our movies promote guns. You can't go a day through our media without a gun in it.

If there is a training, it's to create a hard heart that will pull a trigger and take a life. The gun is just a tool. The real weapon is the person.

Re:Hyperbole

[CrimsonAvenger]

You do realize that means rioters would be armed too, right?
So instead of throwing rocks and burning cars, London could be the setting for a Wild West shootout. What an improvement!

Remember the big L.A. riots? People in Los Angeles were essentially disarmed also.

How about the big Nashville riots? No? Probably because they didn't happen. And Nashville happens to be a place where guns are moderately common.

Fact is, most people trying to steal a flat-screen TV don't have a major interest in getting shot for their trouble, and tend to look for safer lines of work if the likelihood of getting shot starts going up.

Once upon a time, shortly after Florida made concealed carry legal, it was noticed that there was a spike in robberies of people in rental cars in Florida. Upon investigation (and the questioning of various people robbing people driving rental cars), it was determined that the people who like to steal things from other people had decided (correctly) that people in rental cars tended to be from out of State, and thus has ZERO chance of packing heat. Which made them much safer to rob than the general public....

Re:Hyperbole

[arevos]

Violent crime in the UK is much higher per capita than in the US

In 2009, the US had 5.0 homicides per 100,000 people. The UK had 1.28 homicides per 100,000.

I find it a little hard to believe that there are more violent crimes per capita in the UK, but almost four times less murders.

From Australia

[GoochOwnsYou]

In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!

Oh the Nazi's would have loved our immigration politics over the last decade or so.

thank you Mr. Cameron

[buglista]

Just like the War against Terror allowed everyone to justify punitive actions against their own "internal terrorists", like in Chechnya, and more recently Syria. Great - thanks a bunch Mr. Cameron. Next time, think before you open your mouth, please.

The Onion?

[Ironix]

When I first read this headline I could have sworn it was an Onion article.

China has Balls

[bky1701]

As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.

Re:China has Balls

[DigiShaman]

Thankfully, there's a vast disconnect between the CCP and the average Chinese citizen. The government has much more to fear from its own people than the rest of the world. That is a good thing!

We will all be held accountable. Your fellow citizens will demand it.

Re:China has Balls

[Opportunist]

I think you're right. That's more a message to their own people rather than any western government. Kinda like "See, they do it too. And if you think the free world's so much better than our system, you should now notice that what we do is good since they do it too".

Re:China has Balls

[Intrepid imaginaut]

What I find particularly interesting about recent events is that Gadaffi claimed that "Irish and Scottish mercenaries helped tame the riots".

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE77A0AW20110811

Aside from the utterly laughable lunacy of such a claim, what this means is that his followers and people are so utterly disconnected from reality that they genuinely believe the rest of the world is like a bigger Libya. This is one area where the internet has a hugely positive effect - by normal Libyans sitting in internet cafes chatting with normal westerners, and coming to the realisation that in fact there's no particular reason why they shouldn't enjoy the same prosperity and freedom.

Re:Soon

[Cryacin]

And why shouldn't they? My dry cleaners son got the hell beaten out of him because some looters wanted to steal their commercial sewing machine. What, did the looter want to be considerate and grab something for his mum? We had an incident right on our doorstep that didn't make the news here in London where a middle aged gent didn't want his wheelie bin stolen to be used by the looters to transport their ill gotten goods, so he went out and told them not to take it. Their response? They stabbed him. He's in hospital in intensive care right now and may not live.

So make the bastards pay for their own bullet? Absolutely.

Incidently, Looter != Protester

2 days of Looting happened before the government was confident to make the decision that it was Looting, rather than a protest against the police shooting a guy who pulled a gun on them. Tottenham burned on the Saturday, and the police thought it was an unfortunate situation where a protest got out of hand.

I have lived in several countries, and I can definitely say that even with all the cameras etc, the UK is more considerate of human rights and people's freedom than the good ol' US of A.

If anything, the police here are hamstrung by the law, and it should be loosened somewhat to let them do their job.

Cameron needs to go back to democracy school

[Kristian T.]

I'm shocked that any western leader would not know by heart, that censorship is a no no. And is't barely 6 months Egypt's dictator was lamented for doing the exact same thing.

I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either. This reminds me of when Bush's war on terror gave Putin an excuse to wage his own war on terror in Chechnya.

When will our leaders learn that merely being elected doesn't make you an automatic "Good Guy" in the eyes of the world.

- in related news, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parises Cameron's commitment to uphold law and order (by any means).

Re:this is just the begining...

[samjam]

The single currency is a german experiment, no-one else has an inherent desire for it, only a partial inclination as they are sold the benefits by the german financial controllers.

The rest of europe knows that german government has not given up on the idea of german control of europe, but since they lost the war they have to resort to other means.

It's still not working. Jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war but europeans don't actually want to be that unified.

I've no beef against germans or germany - if they want to unify europe, they are going the right way about it this time, but it won't work I think - but they are allowed to try, and good luck with the idea - but I don't support it, never did, and it isn't working.

Perfect theme for Slashdot

[bursch-X]

China welcomes our new censorship overlords!

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary

[Opportunist]

The definition of child porn is also open to quite a bit of debate in some societies.

The problem I have with any kind of censorship is the definition of the things that should be censored. Invariably, you'll end up in a mess. Where do you draw the line? Legal texts are rarely "kinda-sorta-maybe", things are legal or illegal, but that doesn't always apply easily to the real world

Oh come on...

[radio4fan]

Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.

Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.

The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.

I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.

Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.

Re:China is COMMUNIST

[sjames]

China has called itself Communist since 1949, but like most "Communist" countries, it hasn't really BEEN communist for most of that time.

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary

[Totenglocke]

You do realize that "hate literature" is what is known as an "opinion", right? Are you really saying that governments should (I know many already do, but I'm talking about what the right thing to do is) have laws legislating what opinions you are allowed to have? Orwell had a term for that - thought crime.

Re:Thats not good

[Opportunist]

I can actually hear Palpatine: Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take North Korea's place at my side!

Groupthink

[fondacio]

Did anyone notice the unintended irony of the word "groupthink" in the Global Times article?

The economic and social turmoil in the US, Britain and France might trigger a worldwide groupthink and introspection on the boundaries of democracy and freedom of speech.

An open letter to David Cameron's parents

[ciderbrew]

Some of you may not have seen this. It's just a bit of fun.
But too true.
http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary

[Lexical_Scope]

I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "legitimate censorship". I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts. I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.

I would be far less certain about (for example) hentai or other images of children which were created without any illegal act. I think being sexually attracted to children is a sickness that requires treatment, but only *acting* on it is a crime. I probably think about committing murder several times a day, but I'm not a murderer until I do it.

Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal. If I'm telling people that I don't like brown people and neither should they...that would be an opinion. If people agree with me and decide to go and blow up a mosque then they have committed a crime and deserve to feel the full weight of the law. But should I be charged with something? What if I said I don't like politicians and a listener shoots Andy Burnham?

Censorship is a poor replacement for enforcement of the law and until someone commits an act which is provably against the interests of the society those laws are designed to protect, they should be left the hell alone to do what they want.

Re:this is just the begining...

[Opportunist]

You ARE aware that Germany is one of the big proponents of the Euro and the whole "European Union" thing, yes? And that they are relying to a very major portion of their foreign trade on the rest of Europe? The very last thing Germany would do right now is to sever ties with the rest of the continent, that would probably be economic suicide.

Germany is one of the big payers right now, that much is correct. Odd, it seems, that Merkel was one of the biggest proponents when the question arose whether Greece should be propped up. It MIGHT have to do with Greece being one of the biggest customers for their submarines, amongst other things. Frankly, the very last thing Germany could possibly use right now is a failing Euro and/or a separation from the rest of Europe.

What's true, though, is that the population of Germany is quite unhappy with the general situation. Unemployment is rising, especially in some areas of the former GDR. But barring a forceful change, nothing will move Germany out of the EU.

Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary

[silentcoder]

>Banning of child pornography

Numerous studies have shown that banning child pornography possession actually exacerbates the problem of child mollestation and worse the problem of production of child pornography (by making the possession illegal you drive up the price - much like drug prohibition - thus making the industry more attractive). Currently some of the greatest security minds alive are getting very rich building smuggling networks for child pornography. The money is there because it's illegal. If possession is legal the market value drops massively and so the production and distribution is far less attractive. You don't NEED censorship to deal with the production - it's already illegal because it involves molestation. The more valuable the product is however, the more likely people who may otherwise by afraid of the law will consider the risk worthwhile - especially those not directly involved in the activities but rather acting as secondaries for a slice of the pie (like those security experts).
So if anything - censoring child pornography has made the problem of child pornography WORSE.

>Banning of hate literature

This is another example where the "common sense" prediction is false. Banning hate literature does not in any way reduce the presence of hate, all it does is drive hate-groups further underground. This gives them a sense of legitimacy, increases the risk of them resorting to violent and criminal actions (and feeling justified - every hate group believes they are reacting to persecution rather than the cause of it). Instead by not restricting their speech, we are capable of debating with them - which means we may actually convince a few (impossible to do when people don't want to admit they hold a certain view in public).

Basically both your cases are prime examples of why some of us are opposed to all censorship. Without exception any censorship always exacerbates whatever problem it was meant to address and without exception it always causes massive additional problems which can never be fully predicted upfront.
Therefore it makes no sense to ever be in favor of any censorship.
To use a popular slogan version: censorship is always more obscene than that which it censors.

Re:China is COMMUNIST

[silentcoder]

The point where it was NOT just state capitalism. That's about all that the USSR ever achieved as well.
Replacing many corrupt employers with ONE corrupt employer is not communism at all, not even a little bit and that's all that any of the so-called "communist states" ever did.

True communism can only be anarchic, which rules them all out. The very concept demands that the means of production be owned AND MANAGED BY the people who DO the production.

You may agree or not agree with that ideal - but it's a simple fact that no so-called "communist state" has ever achieved it, or even really tried to.

China didn't praise anything here

[wcoenen]

The original article is an opinion piece. It ends with a little editor's note that it represents the author's point of view only. That's not the same as the Chinese government congratulating their new UK comrad.

1984

[jbssm]

"We've always been at war with Eurasia and we've always been allies of Eastasia."

Just until the Olympics is finished

[petes_PoV]

England (officially London, but events are spread all over the place) hosts the 2012 Olympics and the government must be scared spitless that there will be a repeat of last weeks "minor difficulties" either during or in the run-up to the games, when all the world's media will be present and reporting live. They don't really care that a bunch of shops got burned and others looted, sicne there's no election for some years - but they do care about their world image.

I think we can therefore say fairly accurately that there will be massive restrictions on the freedoms that citizens have, to ensure there is no possibility of any disruptions to the two weeks of running and jumping next summer (plus the paralymics, of course). The only question is: how much of that security clampdown will ever make it into the press?