Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Gov't To Tighten Internet Controls Even Further

jfruh writes "The new Chinese leadership released a document outlining its vision for the country Friday, and most of the attention was paid to reforms, like plans to loosen state control of the economy and end the one-child policy. But when it comes to the Internet, the Chinese Communist government is doubling down on its restrictive policies. The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things, and plans to bolster its regulatory systems and increase the scope of their legal authority."

162 comments

  1. Posting to undo accidental mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Posting to undo accidental mod.

    1. Re:Posting to undo accidental mod by alex67500 · · Score: 1

      On the first post?? Oo

    2. Re:Posting to undo accidental mod by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      As AC!?

      My megahertz.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Posting to undo accidental mod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if you post as AC or if you sign in. Any post to the story from that IP address will undo all mods to that story from that IP.

  2. The trend in China by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

    More economic freedom, social freedom is mixed, and continuing or tighter political control.

    It will be interesting to see if they continue the trend of relatively more economic freedom into the future since the new leadership is harkening back to the old ways. "Where are the true communists?"

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:The trend in China by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      The true communists were never in government. Just like any idealists who actually strive to live their ideals, going into governance is seen as at best an unwanted duty and the first step towards compromise. The opportunists like Mao had no such qualms.

    2. Re:The trend in China by lil_DXL · · Score: 1

      Communists aren't allowed to join the communist party anymore, even left-leaning members (like Bo Xilai) aren't allowed anymore. Funny little factoid about the CCP: back in 2005, party leaders discussed changing the party's name from CCP to Chinese Republican Party, but rejected the idea since a splinter Communist party may appear... sniff sniff

    3. Re:The trend in China by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      They move from dictatorship of the party to dictatorship of money without the detour to democracy. They're kinda more efficient than we are, we took that detour.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:The trend in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rejected the idea since a splinter Communist party may appear.

      That's impossible. There can be and always has been only one party in China! Saying otherwise is classified as treasonous counter revolutionary terror speak.

    5. Re:The trend in China by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Quick couple of questions. What's a communist to you? If it has something to do with authoritarian statism, I'd really appreciate a more detailed answer. Do you think that North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and China are all communist? If so, could you detail the similarities between them that make them communist?
      Thanks.

      Also re your sig: I'm committed to seeing you committed. Haha.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    6. Re:The trend in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Where are the true communists?"

      Cuba, Venezuela, and Berkeley.

    7. Re: The trend in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is true. They still have a politburo afterall.

    8. Re:The trend in China by Monsuco · · Score: 2

      Quick couple of questions. What's a communist to you? If it has something to do with authoritarian statism, I'd really appreciate a more detailed answer. Do you think that North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and China are all communist? If so, could you detail the similarities between them that make them communist? Thanks.

      The hallmark of a capitalistic society and the antithesis of communism is property rights. A capitalistic society is founded on the principal of individual ownership while communism is founded on the principal of collective ownership. Property rights in China are inconsistently enforced and they basically don't exist in Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea.

      Intellectual property is even less likely to be coherently codified and respected in these countries. It is only occasionally enforced in China and basically never enforced in Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea. In China's case, government agencies occasionally even help Chinese companies violate the intellectual property rights of foreign companies.

      Property rights can't truly exist without a fair and impartial judicial system to recognize and arbitrate property rights. China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba do not have a stable judicial system that allows for legitimate judicial rulings over property case law.

    9. Re:The trend in China by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks for the response. So, communism is defined by the lack of property rights and the collective ownership of property? If property is defined as those things that are not for personal use, then I see your point (though I think that the definition is still too simplistic).

      Let's look at the USA. The USA must be communist! Why? Because large chunks of the economy are owned by the collective (one or other level of the government). This is not just land, roads, and institutions (e.g. libraries), but also whole companies (e.g General Motors). Moreover, the government can take property off others almost whenever they want! Sure there is something about just and fair compensation in the constitution, but who ever reads that anyway?

      "Property rights in China are inconsistently enforced and they basically don't exist in Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea."
      LOL, citation please. No matter how you define property, I would suggest the situation in those countries is no worse than it is in the USA. In China, there are flourishing companies, manufacturing all sorts of things. They don't get taken over by the government, or by gangs of other thugs any more than they do in the USA.
      I can't speak for Vietnam, but I'm pretty sure the situation for personal property is no worse than anywhere else. Cuba is the closest of the four (as far as I know) to the "communist" ideal, but even there people own stuff, and it won't be taken from them any more than it would across the water in the USA. North Korea is just a crazy feudalistic monarchy. C.f. with various other feudal monarchies from centuries ago. That's not communist.

      "Intellectual property" is a meaningless term, and for most of what is called "intellectual property", is dependent on government enforcement to ensure that it even exists. Trademarks are about the only aspect that I don't believe does not require systematic government intervention to enforce. Copyright requires governments, to enforce. Patents require governments. Moreover, there are many "capitalists" who would argue that both copyright and patents are not capitalistic at all, as they do require governments interfering in the free market (by providing artificial monopolies in certain areas).

      "Property rights can't truly exist without a fair and impartial judicial system to recognize and arbitrate property rights. China, Vietnam, North Korea and Cuba do not have a stable judicial system that allows for legitimate judicial rulings over property case law."
      Funny.
      I currently live in a country where the judicial system is very poor. Yet, I'm sure that you would suggest it is a capitalist country. Because property exists. Also, I'd really appreciate some more info, preferably including links to where the info came from.

      ----

      In conclusion: Your definition of communist is insufficient. Moreover, it is at odds with the one that is actually used by most communists, and by most political scientists and philosophers. (Classless, stateless society, where the means of production are held in common, and which operates on the principle (or something similar) of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need" (where ability is variously defined).) Your definition also could

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
  3. at least they're honest by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    tfs:

    The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things

    This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

    1. Re:at least they're honest by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

      Every country has it's bogeymen (a/k/a government excuses). Here it's "terrorism", over there I think "social disharmony" or some such . The funny thing about manure is that it smells the same wherever you go.

    2. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

      No, the US is equally up front about that, you just doubt the motive.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    3. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are pretty open about all of their forced labor camps too.

      Oh wait...

    4. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Every country has it's bogeymen (a/k/a government excuses). Here it's "terrorism",

      Bogeymen are generally considered imaginary and don't have a body count. That isn't an accurate description of terrorism in the US. It has both an existing body count and a continuing series of arrests and convictions. (Which is also a handy fact to consider when the subject of "magic rocks" comes up.)

      The funny thing about manure is that it smells the same wherever you go.

      There seems to be some disagreement about the identification of manure.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:at least they're honest by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      No, the US is equally up front about that

      So the Snowden revelations about domestic surveillance were old news?

    6. Re:at least they're honest by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      The Chinese bogeyman is somewhat more realistic. Terrorism has never been a real danger to Americans (as horrible as 9/11 was, less than 4000 people were killed, just compare that to road statistics). On the other hand, social unrest with huge numbers of dead has continually erupted through Chinese history. Now, I don't think that merely allowing Facebook is necessarily going to lead to that again, and I personally would prefer to see more emphasis on individual rights in China, but the Chinese government obviously wants to tread cautiously, and they have fairly broad support because the population is convinced of the danger too.

    7. Re:at least they're honest by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

      In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

      No, the US is equally up front about that, you just doubt the motive.

      You discover motive by examining how the term "terrorist" is defined.

    8. Re:at least they're honest by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If a 9/11 scale attack occurred in the US every month, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a terror attack. The degree to which we fear terrorism relative to the actual risk is way out of proportion. If someone proposed things like indefinite detention or wide scale monitoring to prevent bad driving, they'd rightly be seen as a paranoid nut.

    9. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Bogeymen are generally considered imaginary and don't have a body count.

      Fortunately for us, most terrorists do indeed seem to be bogeymen.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    10. Re:at least they're honest by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      A body count that, most years, kills fewer Americans domestically than lightning strikes.

      Lightning averages 51 deaths a year, so a big attack can push it over. For comparison, the most recent 'major' attack at the Boston marathon achieved three deaths.

    11. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman? At least I'm a good dancer - a boogieman.

      Perhaps you mean boogeyman?

    12. Re:at least they're honest by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      The Forum in Beijing Bridget Kendall chairs a wide-ranging discussion in Beijing about the internet in China: does the rise of digital communication empower the Chinese individual or the state? How is the social media explosion changing the nature of Chinese society? How much is free expression really curtailed by the Great Firewall of China and the recent legislation aimed at curbing the spread of 'rumours' on the net? And is the ability to share the minutiae of their lives online making the young in China politically apathetic? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kdgtr Airs views from both government spokes persons and those using the internet as to what the people want, need and are allowed.

    13. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I think the government did more to inconvenience and harass most people after the bombing than the actual terrorists did.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    14. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack. The degree to which people confuse the significance of random chance accidents versus deaths caused by willful human action is appalling. Indefinite detention is how prisoners of war are held. Indefinite detention isn't really appropriate for traffic incidents short of murder.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    15. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      The US is up front about its surveillance and intelligence being directed against terrorism.

      As to the Snowden leaks, a lot of that ground was covered in 2006 or before.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    16. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Yes. And that definition seems to be sticking pretty close to terrorism, not "terrorism."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:at least they're honest by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      bogeyman (bmæn) —n , pl -men a person, real or imaginary, used as a threat, esp to children Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

      An entirely appropriate use of the term in this case

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    18. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman?

      No, but if you're one of the many imaginary terrorists, you might just be a bogeyman.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    19. Re:at least they're honest by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      'Kill' isn't the only possible outcome. How many maimings are caused by lightning v. "terrorism"?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    20. Re:at least they're honest by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I can't find any data to corroborate your claim. In fact, it looks like the federal government of the U.S. didn't start tracking vehicular deaths until the late 1990s, as far as all the sources I checked indicate.

      Can you back up what you said?

    21. Re:at least they're honest by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 2

      If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack.

      And indeed we seem to be putting very little effort into protecting Hawaii from Japanese sneak attacks right now.

    22. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.

      The thing about terrorism is that its goal is to create fear, and the only defense to fear is a sense of security. There is of course a balance of how much fear there is vs how much freedom people should have. For example, Its OK for someone to have a knife as there's are reasons they need it, but I still wouldn't give my 3 year old a knife, and say GO HAVE FUN! Children our considered less intelligent and less mature, so this example is pretty clear. The less clear examples, are where bravado and showmanship limit discussion.

      Its also worth noting that if a terrorist were to get a nuclear bomb, or just a dirty bomb, they could kill an entire city and prevent that city from being liveable. While, I hope that risk is VERY low, the truth is no one really knows. People that we would expect to know are the ones asking for all the information, so they can figure out that risk. There is of course a problem that if you give someone too much they will naturally try to use that information to do things, that go beyond what we as a society are OK with.

      Its nice to quote people in the past and be like, they said freedom is the most important thing. The people in the past didn't face today's problems. I think people forget to be realistic and focus on the logistics of protecting our way of life. There are people in this world who want a way of life where certain sections of the population dead. While, I don't think its fair to blame people for support giving people more power, if it means they can avoid a risk of death. That's not to say there are not limits.

      The best way I can sum this up is, that transparency protects against internal threats and information obscurity protects against external threats. A system of trust is the best way to figure out which group to give information to and which information to hide things from. One reason the united states political system has very little trust is because of how elections are funded. The Chinese government removes peoples input from there political process and relies on an oligarchy style of leadership. The problem with the oligarchy style is that its incredibly difficult to prevent corruption of the people who are governing the system. This can lead to people overacting to situations, and destabilizing the government before there's a chance to response.

      Problems on a large scale are rarely as simple as they appear to be to an outside observer. However, asking how to solve the problems leads to issues being clear to people who are intelligent enough to understand implications of different polices.

    23. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack. The degree to which people confuse the significance of random chance accidents versus deaths caused by willful human action is appalling. Indefinite detention is how prisoners of war are held. Indefinite detention isn't really appropriate for traffic incidents short of murder.

      What is more appalling is the lack of respect people have for driving and just how dangerous it really is. People put everyone's life at risk (including their own) every day by not paying 100% attention to the situation on the road. For some reason, it's "ok" to drive through stop signs and red lights, so long as no one dies.

      Willful human action is only about 1/4 as scary as willful human inaction...

    24. Re:at least they're honest by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      I believe what they are saying with the comparison is that there is zero chance of al Qaida or some other "Islamist" bogeyman becoming more of a threat to the United States than pulling off an occasional lightning strike. Invading multiple countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sowing the seeds of future conflict, and printing trillions of dollars to pay for it is an appalling overreaction to a unique event. This was understood in the USA as recently as the 1970s when we didn't invade South America over the actions of a few criminal groups.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    25. Re:at least they're honest by poity · · Score: 1

      Is this why you love the GOP over the Democrats? They're pretty honest in comparison, if recent history is any indication.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    26. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman? At least I'm a good dancer - a boogieman.

      Perhaps you mean boogeyman?

      Nope

    27. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.

      Both of which are probably nothing compared to how much we waste on 'security' and the military.

      and the only defense to fear is a sense of security.

      Which means that violating people's rights and spending trillions of dollars trying to stop a problem that's nearly nonexistent probably isn't a very good idea.

      There is of course a balance of how much fear there is vs how much freedom people should have.

      Balance? To me, freedom is the absolute top priority. Safety isn't even near the top for me.

      I think people forget to be realistic and focus on the logistics of protecting our way of life.

      We won't even have a way of life if we discard it for security. What happened to having principles? What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave? What happened to not being complete cowards? Nothing happened. People are as naive and idiotic as ever, I'd say.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    28. Re:at least they're honest by harvestsun · · Score: 1

      Could you not say that social disharmony has a body count as well? But in both cases, the question is: do the ends justify the means? Are the amount of terrorism related deaths prevented worth the sacrifice of privacy/freedom?

      Unlike China, the USA is a democracy, and is built on the premise that such questions should be up to the general populace to decide. This cannot happen if information is kept hidden from the public, for no better reason than "such information might aid terrorists!". At a minimum, the president should be aware of these actions, since he is the one whom the people have entrusted with executive power.

    29. Re:at least they're honest by noh8rz10 · · Score: 2

      Is this why you love the GOP over the Democrats? They're pretty honest in comparison, if recent history is any indication.

      Tbh I haven't seen much of a distinction here. I think it's very notable that the repubs have been flaming Obama over any little perceived goof, but they've been completely mum about all of the NSA stuff. I think dems and repubs agree on this issue. Dems have been more guilty recently because Obama is in office, but repubs were more guilty before because Bush was in office.

      Generally I lean Dem although my internal compass has been changing recently. But in this issue I can't find any safe harbor. Even Rand Paul has been mum. I guess the best thing I can do is support EFF? Any advice is appreciated.

    30. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Balance? To me, freedom is the absolute top priority. Safety isn't even near the top for me."
      If freedom is the most important thing, Will you post your address on here ? Will you give me your full name ? WIll you give me your cell phone number? How about, would you give a crazy person a gun ?

      "Both of which are probably nothing compared to how much we waste on 'security' and the military."
      How do you define waste ? While I am not saying there isn't a military complex driving development for some crazy projects. There are allot of side benefits and really that's an entirely different conversation.

      "Which means that violating people's rights and spending trillions of dollars trying to stop a problem that's nearly nonexistent probably isn't a very good idea."
      If you feel there's not a problem, then please travel to Afghanistan or Iraq, just go to the shops and see how long you live. You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like. Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.

      "We won't even have a way of life if we discard it for security. What happened to having principles? What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave? What happened to not being complete cowards? Nothing happened. People are as naive and idiotic as ever, I'd say."
      How does trusting people violate your principals ? More importantly what principals do you have ? Clearly, you have never lived anywhere other then the United States. If you have visited one of the countries in the euro zone, please stop and remember there social policies have them in a bit of a physical crunch. Also, keep in mind there history. Is there a country you think has more freedom then the United States ?

    31. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 2
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    32. Re:at least they're honest by nsuccorso · · Score: 1

      Normalizing bad behavior isn't something to aspire to.

    33. Re:at least they're honest by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Orwell called it "double speak".

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    34. Re:at least they're honest by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Just because I can hit random animals over the head with the rock and call them tigers doesn't mean the rock protects me from actual tigers.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:at least they're honest by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      The thing about terrorism is that I'd sooner take my chances ending up on that body count list than sacrifice personal freedoms and privacy for perceived security, in which I'm no more secure than prior to those incidents.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    36. Re:at least they're honest by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      If you were good at picking your nose that too would make you a good bogeyman.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    37. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never, for one moment, felt in danger from terrorists. U.S. law enforcement on the other hand..

    38. Re:at least they're honest by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Living under a certain rule for generations you would be convinced as well.

      Russia proved communism doesn't work, here we are in the US proving that capitalism is failing at least for citizens. At least with communism you have corrupt officials to worry about, here it's corrupt officials and corporations that trample the people.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    39. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If freedom is the most important thing, Will you post your address on here ? Will you give me your full name ? WIll you give me your cell phone number? How about, would you give a crazy person a gun ?

      What? That makes absolutely zero sense. I said that freedom is most important to me, and now you're asking me to waste my time posting information about myself? How does this at all relate to the government violating people's rights? Spoiler: It doesn't.

      How do you define waste ?

      As in... wasting money on killing people and starting pointless wars.

      If you feel there's not a problem

      I said that the problem is nearly nonexistent. I live in the US. The problem is nearly nonexistent.

      You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like.

      You clearly lack intelligence of the point I was making.

      Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.

      Considering that they violate people's rights too, yeah.

      How does trusting people violate your principals ?

      What violates my principles is when the government violates people's freedoms in the name of security.

      More importantly what principals do you have ?

      That freedom is worth taking risks for. That we should not sacrifice freedom for security a grand majority of the time.

      Clearly, you have never lived anywhere other then the United States.

      I don't know how you reach these nonsensical conclusions, and even more, I have no idea how any of this is relevant. Such garbage.

      If you have visited one of the countries in the euro zone, please stop and remember there social policies have them in a bit of a physical crunch. Also, keep in mind there history.

      What's this!? More irrelevancies!? It can't be!

      Is there a country you think has more freedom then the United States ?

      Saying that X is better than Y does not make X good. Killing ten babies might be 'better' than killing 100 babies, but neither are good things to me. Likewise, just because the US is better in some ways compared to other countries does not mean its negatives should be ignored. Bringing up other countries is utterly irrelevant. Enough with the irrelevancies.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    40. Re:at least they're honest by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      By now I think the body count for our reaction to terrorism outweighs that of terrorism itself by some margin.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    41. Re:at least they're honest by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      There seems to be some disagreement about the identification of manure.

      No, I think it pretty much identifies the ter'rism bogieman and people who blog like 100% of assassinations and arrests are all 100% accurate and that this small sample reflects that 100% of the reports and scares were justified.

      Since lightning kills 10x more people, we need to strip search everyone for wires and spend $4 trillion putting up lightning rods ever 10 meters or so -- just to have a commensurate threat/response profile.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    42. Re:at least they're honest by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      We need indefinite detention for sellers of Rubber Duckies. Rubber Duckiesin bath tubs have killed more people via slip and fall than 9/11 -- something MUST BE DONE!

      >> Please don't take this as a tacit agreement on my part that any future False Flags need to up the ante to prove to us how much we need 1 million people involved in the "security apparatus." Stop hiring consultants from the former Stazi for instance.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    43. Re:at least they're honest by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      However it could be argued that the bad guys "saved lives" because they stopped traffic and that lowered the overall death rate in Boston.

      Boy, we number crunchers are a cold bunch!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    44. Re:at least they're honest by khallow · · Score: 1

      They're completely up front about who they are.

      Yea, right. Everything is carefully cloaked in terms of social stability and order. It's just a slightly different flavored hypocrisy than what you're used to.

      I'm not here to whitewash the US's sins, but to point out that once again, we see the double standard of ignoring comparable sins in China.

    45. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta love a good strawman argument.

    46. Re:at least they're honest by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      What they are not up front about is the surveillance of all citizens of the US and how that data is used and shared among other acronym groups, who shouldn't have access to this data any more than the NSA should. If you are wondering what I am talking about watch Clapper's response to Wyden about phone data, and come back here and say the NSA is up front about what it is doing...

      They aren't up front about shit, if they are lying to their own citizens about their activity.

    47. Re:at least they're honest by spacepimp · · Score: 2

      Support the EFF, but you're missing some major points here. This is not a bipartisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat. It has divided parties and in many ways that is a good thing. It stomps out the party line and lets people find a common ground of interest not pandering to a lobby.
      There are plenty of Republicans up in arms about this. One quite visible has been Sensenbrenner who authored the Patriot Act and saying they are deliberately abusing the spirit of the Act, which was codified to directly avoid mass collection of data on citizens. If you missed that then you haven't paid a bit of attention. Secondly Rand Paul has been quite vocal about what is occurring, and even gone so far as to publicly state he assumes the NSA is spying on Obama.

    48. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? That makes absolutely zero sense. I said that freedom is most important to me, and now you're asking me to waste my time posting information about myself? How does this at all relate to the government violating people's rights? Spoiler: It doesn't.

      The government has your address, in some cases you cell phone, and allot of other information about you. Its your expectation that they keep that information protected. In other words, you don't want an entirely transparent government.That information is needed for a lot of reasons. For example, if you get a ticket for parking your car the government mails you a ticket, as you own the car you are responsible for the ticket. Again, freedom is important, but it requires a balance to security, just as you likely don't want someone with a gun to shoot you, you just expect that the government will balance out how it controls guns. However, you seem to have allot of expectations with out any concern for how those expectations come to be put in place. (More on that below..)

      "How do you define waste ?"
      "As in... wasting money on killing people and starting pointless wars."

      While, I do agree conflict should be avoided, if it can't the longer conflict is delayed the more it will cost to fix the problem. For example, in Iran, everyone wants a peaceful resolution to Iran giving up nuclear weapons. Some groups think that Iran won't ever give up trying to get nukes, therefore going to war has less of cost now then later. The idea here is the more time spent waiting gives the other side time to prepare. Anther example here is ww2 where germony was allowed to invade Austria.

      If you feel there's not a problem
      "I said that the problem is nearly nonexistent. I live in the US. The problem is nearly nonexistent."
      The reason theres not a problem in the US is because of the efforts that are taken. Policy are on the streets, and nuclear material is kept out of the hands of crazy people. Even with all that the US does there are still cases where someone manages to blow up buildings. The polices and infrastructure that exists in our government is good compared to allot of countries.

      "You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like."
      "You clearly lack intelligence of the point I was making."
      Your the one explaining your point...why not explain it better instead of responding in the way you did? My point is that if you look at other countries and how they solve different problems you can better understand why the U.S does somethings vs others. Its also, more clear at what the us does well and what they don't do well at. Something you seem to have no problem trying to argue about, even though you are less informed and not using much information to back it up...see my point about bravado from above...

      Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.
      Considering that they violate people's rights too, yeah.
      Rights are things that you are guaranteed. My point to there being a balance, is that you only have a right to do something as long as it doesn't violate someone elses right to do something. In situations where there is a conflict, the goal is to protect the greats number of people with out unjustly imposing on anther group. For example, Its not fair for the government to be able to search everyone and everything any time. This would limit the ability of people to go about there daily life. However, the government can search you or anyone if the situation is strange or unusual, because you could potential kill someone, and if you have any understanding of timelines, killing someone prevents them from ANY right to do ANYTHING. Do you want an anarchy where everyone can do what ever they want with out concern for how it impacts others ? There are limits, and those limits impact the overall type of government that exists.

      "How does trusting people violate your principals ?"
      "What violates my principles is when the government violates people's freedoms in the name of security."

    49. Re:at least they're honest by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are.

      Gotta love evil when it's upfront about itself, right? Right??

    50. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not here to whitewash the US's sins, but to point out that once again, we see the double standard of ignoring comparable sins in China.

      Ok, then let's compare these so called comparable sins.

      What we have in the US is the government pretending to be protecting its people from external threats to extend its powers. The US is evoking Emmanuel Goldstein.

      What we have in China is the government being upfront to want to protect itself - its own social stability and order - from its people. They're the king, they do what they want, for their own protection.

      In other words, the US is socialist. China is just plain a tyranny. I'm not here to whitewash tyranny, but socialism has done so much damage (in the US and elsewhere) in just the last century, if we are to compare, then the US is worst.

      To make things even worse for the US, the US was supposed to be better than that. At least that's what the (public) education system tells us, that the US was formed because it didn't like the tyrannies and empires of old.

    51. Re:at least they're honest by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Informative. A++++ would debate again.

    52. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and people with too much time on there hands..now that they have figured out freedom vs security..maybe tomorrow they will cure cancer or create world peace ..

    53. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The government has your address, in some cases you cell phone, and allot of other information about you.

      And? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government violating people's rights. Try to keep up.

      The reason theres not a problem in the US is because of the efforts that are taken.

      That's what you'd like to believe, but have no evidence of. The real reason is because of my anti-terrorist rock.

      Your the one explaining your point

      And you're spewing forth straw men and irrelevancies and generally misinterpreting me.

      There are limits, and those limits impact the overall type of government that exists.

      What's this nonsense about anarchy now? I do not believe fundamental freedoms should be infringed upon, even for safety. The end.

      A government is just a group of people who agree to certain things.

      And the things that they do can be seen as morally wrong. What is your point, except to point out the obvious and then somehow tie it in with the rest of your nonsense about "balance"?

      Please see social contract for more information.

      I can't, because that's just something that means whatever people want it to mean. That said, the government should probably read the constitution.

      Some times life requires compromise in order to achieve certain things, like for example having a safe place to live.

      I do not compromise on fundamental freedoms. I am not required to do such a thing. The end.

      Yet again, nothing helpful or useful to say.

      That's how I feel about your entire comments. They're eyesores that are filled with irrelevancies, straw men, and statements of the obvious.

      If every country except one was killing 100 babies, where would you go live ?

      Again, this is irrelevant to the discussion of the government violating people's rights, and whether or not the 'best' country has flaws that must be fixed. I merely pointed that out. Read my comment again if you still do not understand.

      You haven't offered one solution to a problem

      What problem?

      or even suggest a reason for why there's are where they are which would benefit the people reading it.

      What? I don't even know what that was supposed to be. Are you attempting to appeal to the status quo or something?

      its hardly useful if your points don't make sense to a person

      100% agreed.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    54. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      For example, if you get a ticket for parking your car the government mails you a ticket, as you own the car you are responsible for the ticket. Again, freedom is important, but it requires a balance to security, just as you likely don't want someone with a gun to shoot you, you just expect that the government will balance out how it controls guns. However, you seem to have allot of expectations with out any concern for how those expectations come to be put in place. (More on that below..)

      Oh, and don't assume I agree with random things that the government does at present.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    55. Re:at least they're honest by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      Support the EFF, but you're missing some major points here. This is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat.

      very true, point taken about Stensenbrenner and Paul. I will follow the issue more closely. Perhaps even vote for Paul if he runs for president! Not that it would make much of a diff because I'm in CA and it will go Dem regardless.

    56. Re:at least they're honest by sjames · · Score: 1

      To be fair, I have seen some people who are indeed dangerous at the tee. They keep forgetting to yell 'fore' and then they unleash a ballistic projectile on a nearly random trajectory. It's really just a matter of time before someone dies.,/p>

    57. Re:at least they're honest by sjames · · Score: 1

      We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.

      And their entire annual budgets combined wouldn't pay for a single nudie scanner even though the issues they are working on are far more likely to kill someone than the terrorists. They also don't hole people up searching them for items that might attract lightning. They don't even have the power to command you to turn your cellphone off while driving.

      Its also worth noting that if a terrorist were to get a nuclear bomb, or just a dirty bomb, they could kill an entire city and prevent that city from being liveable.

      And if they get a nude bomb, everyone will be embarrassed. If they get a prize in their Cracker Jacks, they might be briefly entertained. ONE of those 3 is actually likely to happen.

    58. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop throwing away your vote.

      Vote third party.

      Posting anon to keep mods intact.

    59. Re:at least they're honest by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      And if you do die in a car accident, it's probably a burning Tesla.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    60. Re:at least they're honest by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      Further up I asked cold fjord to define communism for me. I'll ask the same for you. What do you think it is? If you think that North Korea, Cuba, China, and Vietnam (and the former USSR) are (and were) communist, could you explain what makes them all communist? Thanks.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    61. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government has your address, in some cases you cell phone, and allot of other information about you.
      And? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government violating people's rights. Try to keep up.
      The governments freedom of information and polices towards restricting information do relate to when it violates peoples rights...

      The reason theres not a problem in the US is because of the efforts that are taken.
      That's what you'd like to believe, but have no evidence of. The real reason is because of my anti-terrorist rock.

      You can't disprove something that didn't happen(i.e the lack of an attack), its your obligation to prove that removing the efforts would improve social welfare. i.e removing border security wouldn't increase the chances of unregulated nuclear materiel into the united states. Good luck with that...

      Your the one explaining your point
      And you're spewing forth straw men and irrelevancies and generally misinterpreting me.
      I'm not trying to argue with you, I am responding to your comment, and if your going to complain and wine about the world, its logical for me to say, "if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything". The points I posted I seldom read anywhere. My points also speak to your credibility.. Which with me is rating very low..so i likely won't read any of your responses going forward.

      What's this nonsense about anarchy now? I do not believe fundamental freedoms should be infringed upon, even for safety. The end.
      In a world where the 2 weren't connect I'd give you a high five and call it a day. The problem that you seem to lack and understanding of is that there now. If you let anyone do what ever they want, they will hurt other people. Something you seem to be ignoring..

      A government is just a group of people who agree to certain things.
      And the things that they do can be seen as morally wrong. What is your point, except to point out the obvious and then somehow tie it in with the rest of your nonsense about "balance"?
      My point here is that the government is what we make it, and the conversations that we have. You complain about how the government tramples peoples rights yet, you don't care enough to go into politics.

      Please see social contract for more information.
      I can't, because that's just something that means whatever people want it to mean. That said, the government should probably read the constitution.
      Wow, you need to learn to read more
      google define socail contract:"an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. " If your saying people can't define it see the rule of law, if you want to say there is no rule of law, then please explain how that's not anarchy (defined as: "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." )?

      Some times life requires compromise in order to achieve certain things, like for example having a safe place to live.
      I do not compromise on fundamental freedoms. I am not required to do such a thing. The end.
      fundamental:forming a necessary base or core; of central importance. Being stopped at the border and searched, does not prevent you from being free... A society does need to create a rule of law in order to avoid problems...I think you have read too many fairy tales, thats just the start...

      Yet again, nothing helpful or useful to say.
      That's how I feel about your entire comments. They're eyesores that are filled with irrelevancies, straw men, and statements of the obvious.
      Clearly, you don't understand the connections being made then to refute them, so your just ranting... A question is not an argument, its an attempt to understand your position, its ironic that you claim i am misrepresenting your position when I ask you a question to establish your view on a certain topic. Hopefully, you'll get so angry that you will go into politics then you will see how things are more complicated then your simplified view you have

    62. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the difference between lighting and terrorists is informed risk..

    63. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to play devils advocate: Most of us know when we get behind the wheel of a car and get onto the freeway that there are other cars and that collisions are possible and dangerous. The intelligent driver is scanning for trouble and usually avoiding it. Terrorism is frightening because you do not expect a terrorist attack when you're sitting in a movie theater or walking through a mall or sitting at your desk working. The idea that someone else will place you in danger, but you have no control over that danger, is uncomfortable to us. Americans, perhaps more than others, need to feel in control of our fate as much as possible.

    64. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..says the person who thinks Pakistan wouldn't use nuclear bombs against India...

    65. Re:at least they're honest by sjames · · Score: 1

      What does the eternal conflict between Pakistan and India have to do with terrorists getting their hands on a functional nuke in the U.S.?

    66. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anon to keep mods intact.

      I'm posting anon too and I'm doing it for my own reasons, but just so as we're all clear, we really don't give a shit why you're posting anon.

    67. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you must be a fan of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and every other totalitarian government who blatantly and mercilessly crushed any dissent.

      In other words, you're a true douchebag.

    68. Re:at least they're honest by rsborg · · Score: 1

      tfs:

      The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things

      This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

      Oh, come now. There're many reasons you can give, the American public is very receptive to not only "terrorist prevention" but also "religious freedom" [1], not to mention "right to bear arms" - "stand your ground" is a great example of using this freedom effectively to justify many actions [2].

      And don't forget "about the children" - it's very easy to promote your agenda in the name of children, especially if they're not yet born. The personhood movement hasn't yet been successful yet [3] - but give them time!

      For more information on how to properly promote your agenda using well-known channels, please contact your preferred top-tier lobbying organization, scientology office, or the GOP (Democrats suck at this, but are getting better - best to go with the leaders in the field for now).

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology
      [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
      [3] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personhood_laws

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    69. Re:at least they're honest by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      ...so for just one example: you think anyone opposed to hydrofracking for any reason (ie, including "nuclear is more efficient") is a legitimate terrorist? Because the DHS does:

      http://www.post-gazette.com/legal/2012/04/30/Anti-fracking-group-adds-claims-to-surveillance-suit/stories/201204300191

    70. Re:at least they're honest by khallow · · Score: 1

      What we have in China is the government being upfront to want to protect itself - its own social stability and order - from its people. They're the king, they do what they want, for their own protection.

      No. That social stability and order is allegedly for the sake of their people. I don't see it being any more transparent an excuse than the terrorism excuse is in the US.

      To make things even worse for the US, the US was supposed to be better than that. At least that's what the (public) education system tells us, that the US was formed because it didn't like the tyrannies and empires of old.

      Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.

      Sure hypocrisy is deeply annoying because it means a lot of "Do as we say, not as we do" behavior. But it also provides a lever for improving such behavior. If you can reveal such behavior, then you can shame the relevant parties into correcting the behavior.

    71. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You should probably read that again more carefully. The allegation in it is that a contractor to a state government agency alleged that the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition could be a threat of some type. It doesn't appear either that the US DHS was involved, or that the threat assessment originated from the state DHS.

      There really isn't much in the story to judge about the conduct of the organization that is suing so I have no idea how they actually behave. It is probably a stretch to consider them terrorists, especially if all they do is engage in nonviolent policy advocacy. On the other hand there are genuine eco-terrorists that have caused tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of damage, engaged in arson, destruction of property, theft, assault, and other crimes.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    72. Re:at least they're honest by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      The governments freedom of information and polices towards restricting information do relate to when it violates peoples rights...

      No, they don't. I said that I care most about freedom, and then you asked me completely irrelevant questions about whether or not I have the desire to give away information and weapons, which has nothing to do with the government infringing upon individual liberties. Nice try.

      its your obligation to prove that removing the efforts would improve social welfare

      What!? The burden of proof isn't on the ones who impose these restrictions and waste taxpayer dollars, but upon the people who just want the government to leave people alone? Interesting. I have a magical rock that keeps a grand majority of terrorists away, and I plan to rent it out to the government for a million dollars a day. It's on you to prove that it doesn't work!

      I'm not trying to argue with you

      That's exactly what you're doing.

      its logical for me to say, "if you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything". The points I posted I seldom read anywhere. My points also speak to your credibility.. Which with me is rating very low.

      How is that logical? You also haven't said anything I'd consider useful; that sort of thing happens all the time. If people only spoke when you considered it 'useful,' people would rarely at all.

      And what credibility? I simply spoke my opinion and put forth my arguments for all to see. Credibility is irrelevant here.

      If you let anyone do what ever they want, they will hurt other people.

      That's a straw man. No one suggested anarchy.

      Wow, you need to learn to read more

      I do? You're using it however you please, to mean whatever you want it to. You don't even comprehend what I'm talking about.

      Being stopped at the border and searched, does not prevent you from being free

      In fact, I think it does. Many of these stops also violate the US constitution. Now who's saying that they want to let anyone (meaning the government) do whatever they want? If they're not even bound by the document that lists the powers they have, they're not bound by anything.

      If border searches violate certain freedoms, and they do, then you're less free than before. We used to make fun of the Soviet Union for less than this.

      you don't care enough to go into politics.

      What politics? Get rid of the NSA, TSA, constitutional-free zones, free speech zones, warrantless searching and wiretapping in general, and gag orders, to start with.

      Clearly, you don't understand the connections being made

      No, you're just attacking straw men and spewing forth irrelevancies constantly. Other countries are irrelevant to what the US is doing. I did not propose anarchy. That's just two things off the top of my head.

      For example, that the government is trampling your rights with out any dentition for how its doing so. Plus, you brought up killing babies, which I think is a bit strange?

      You asked something to the effect of, "Which country is more free than the US?" This is 100% irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything. The "killing babies" part is called an analogy, and I used it because I found it probable enough that you were using that ridiculous "If X is better than Y, then X is automatically good!" arguments when you tried to ask me if I knew of any countries more free than the US.

      Your the one claiming the government is hurting you by taking away your freedoms..i.e the harm your claiming..

      Right. Please try to keep up. Clearly this conversation was about terrorism, so try to use your brain to figure out how the government has been violating people's rights in the name of stopping it.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    73. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give up, what happened on the 12th of July, 1941 ?

    74. Re:at least they're honest by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      Bogeymen can also refer to slightly harmful things that get blown way out of proportion.

      Why not have a "war on drunk driving", "war on slippery floors" or a "war on electricity" ?

    75. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think China is communist, you probably think American states are "united" as well.

    76. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet no mention of the illegal surveillance of everyone in the US. It's almost as if the NSA were using the upfront claim of fighting terrorists as some kind of fig leaf to cover whats really going on.
      Hardly seems honest to me.
      USA less honest than China, now I truly have seen everything.

    77. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame?
      An American politician, and you think they will feel shame?

      Also, social stability in China is a far more dangerous thing than all the terrorist attacks in the history of the US.
      Try and have some perspective of what your claiming.

    78. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indefinite detention is how prisoners of war are held.

      Indefinite detention is not appropriate even for prisoners of war. Consider what would happen if there was a hundred year long war ...

    79. Re:at least they're honest by khallow · · Score: 1

      An American politician, and you think they will feel shame?

      Shame here is not an internal emotion, but the act of outing a public figure's failings.

      Also, social stability in China is a far more dangerous thing than all the terrorist attacks in the history of the US.

      I see the rationalizations are still kicking in. One doesn't need the current Chinese government in order to have Chinese social stability any more than one needs the current espionage agencies in the US to prevent terrorism.

    80. Re:at least they're honest by Monsuco · · Score: 1

      This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

      If Snowden had never released those documents, be honest, nobody in the general public would have noticed PRISM. The reason nobody would've noticed is the NSA isn't hauling people off to prison. The people in China are well aware of their government's censorship and of the police state. In China, websites actually are blocked. In China, people publishing material that is critical of the government are actually thrown in jail for it.

    81. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That social stability and order is allegedly for the sake of their people. I don't see it being any more transparent an excuse than the terrorism excuse is in the US.

      Incorrect. Again, external vs internal threat. "Their" people in China's context means only people who obey them and the party, not the people of the nation at large. Chinese government is implicitly admitting that they are not going to protect some segments of the population, and in fact persecute them.

      Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.

      Where do "we" see that? I didn't say it's better to not try. I'm saying that the supposedly good guy turning bad is worse than a bad guy being bad.

    82. Re:at least they're honest by khallow · · Score: 1

      Again, external vs internal threat.

      Ok, why does that matter? Especially since so many claimed terrorism threats in the US are actually internal (such as the "militia" movement of the 90s or some ecoterrorist stuff)?

      Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.

      Where do "we" see that? I didn't say it's better to not try. I'm saying that the supposedly good guy turning bad is worse than a bad guy being bad.

      Right there for example. There's the double standard. There should be no lowering of moral standards for someone because they're considered "bad guys" by someone.

      Further, the Chinese government doesn't actually present itself as being a "bad guy". That's a moral judgment by someone else. They're just as much a "good guy" in their self-image as anyone else.

    83. Re:at least they're honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, why does that matter? Especially since so many claimed terrorism threats in the US are actually internal (such as the "militia" movement of the 90s or some ecoterrorist stuff)?

      It matters a lot when you wanted to compare the two countries.

      When it turns out the "social stability" threats to China were internal, China wasn't lying. They said they were going after internal threats, and so they did.

      When it turns out the terrorist threats in the US are internal, it makes the US liars on top of being tyrants, as they said they were going after external threats

      I think it's funny you accuse me of lowering moral standards, when you're the one who acts like lying doesn't matter

      Right there for example. There's the double standard. There should be no lowering of moral standards for someone because they're considered "bad guys" by someone.

      Where? There is no lowering of moral standards here, and you proved it below:

      Further, the Chinese government doesn't actually present itself as being a "bad guy". That's a moral judgment by someone else. They're just as much a "good guy" in their self-image as anyone else.

      Exactly. I'm that someone else. I'm neither the Chinese or American governments, and I'm holding the same standard on both of them. By that same standard, a standard derived from looking at the facts and history of the two nations, US are supposed to be the "good guys". And I'm not the only someone else. Countries all over the world have voluntarily agreed with "American" values (they're not really values that belong to any particular country), and the results show for it: "good" results like economy, science, arts, freedom are found more in countries that follow those values over those of the CCP and the communism line of thinking.

      Furthermore, when China started adopting developed world values, we (me, many countries, Chinese people not the government, and I suspect you as well) attribute those values to be what is making China better. On the flip side, we see the decline in the US and other first world nations to be due to those "bad" ideas that historically just plain don't work.

    84. Re:at least they're honest by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That was gracious of you. I'm honored.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  4. not coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Call me a cynic, but it seems like more than coincidence that China would tighten the reins on Internet use at the same time as they publicly announce relaxing the one child policy.

    Sounds like a government becoming even more authoritarian, but throwing the people a bone to distract from the serious issues..

    Congrats, China, you're learning how to be repressive, American style!

    1. Re:not coincidence by ebno-10db · · Score: 2

      it seems like more than coincidence that China would tighten the reins on Internet use at the same time as they publicly announce relaxing the one child policy. Sounds like a government becoming even more authoritarian, but throwing the people a bone to distract from the serious issues.

      The one child policy is a much bigger deal than a bone.

    2. Re:not coincidence by somersault · · Score: 0

      So, tell us more about how you've never had a dog (and/or don't understand metaphors)?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:not coincidence by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Of course its not a coincidence. China is run by centralized authoritarian government that carefully plans policies for its own good - which sometimes benefits the population as well: in general it is better to rule a prosperous peaceful country rather than a poor rebellious one.

      Unlike the US, China does not pretend to be a free society. Personally I find that less distasteful than American hypocrisy. The US is still considerably less oppressive, but we are doing our best to close that gap.

    4. Re:not coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also something that was bound to happen, a one-child policy is not sustainable.

    5. Re:not coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So tell us why a trivial to get around firewall( Hint get a VPN) is more of a big deal than being alowed to have another child?
      It's not like you can as easily hide a person as some web browsing.
      Maybe you need to brush up on your metaphor understanding.

    6. Re:not coincidence by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's a bit of a weird strawman. I didn't say anything about the internet being more of a big deal. I was saying that bones (in this metaphor, the being allowed more than one child thing) are a very deal to dogs. And they are also very good at being distracting from more serious issues like someone about to lock you into a room.

      The internet thing isn't about how easy it is to get around technical barriers, it's more about how you can be punished if you are discovered (hint: it's not difficult to detect that someone is encrypting the majority of their traffic).

      --
      which is totally what she said
  5. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Antipater · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's like saying we shouldn't have had a Civil Rights movement because at least we weren't killing our minorities like Germany did; we were just oppressing them.

    "Y is worse than X" does not mean that X is not also bad.

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  6. Great place to live by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /sarcasm mode, cowardly said

  7. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But... but... this is China, and it is a good country because it isn't European/American, doesn't like the US, and provides me all the $99 cent socks I want, as well as $2.99 cat food. Exposing corruption there might entail some actual risk to life and limb as opposed to the easy low-hanging fruit of watching the circus in DC where everyone can complain without fear of waking up in pieces.

    Now where is that sarcasm tag...

  8. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The key part of the parent comment was:

    --->Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

  9. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by game+kid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, it's not wise to stop holding our government to account. I'd rather the US set an example for the worse countries by reining in its bribe-happy CIA, bringing the troops home from profit wars, closing GTMO, and stopping espionage that is not required to stop a known and imminent threat to lives.

    Or I guess we can adopt the motto "Still more tolerant and less bloody than Genghis Khan!" but it doesn't quite radiate that exceptional aura.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  10. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    We're perfectly capable of hating both of them, thanks.

  11. Summary and article are vacuous by timeOday · · Score: 1

    The summary, and the few paragraphs constituting the "article" itself, are almost pure interpretation with virtually no specific facts.

  12. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah we all heard about the "Great Firewall" of China (X), but it seems they are now taking a page out of the israeli book, with their false-flags and the "APARTHEID WALL" (Y).
    any news about how amdocs and akamai are effected by this disturbing development?

  13. shades of whomever by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Sheesh. Those new leaders sound as bad as the folks at Sony. Or Apple. Or ...

  14. What's wrong with social media? by NewVegasGod · · Score: 1

    Seriously? Since when has mobilization been a bad thing? And dissemination can be a good thing, under a certain light.

    1. Re: What's wrong with social media? by NewVegasGod · · Score: 1

      Spreading of information via social media definitely being one of those lights.

    2. Re:What's wrong with social media? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Because it is poison to oppressive governments, of which China is one.

    3. Re:What's wrong with social media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they being oppressive? It looks to me like they're doing us all a favor by trying to stomp out excessive narcissism and nip the pics of cats and food in the bud. The biggest problem with social media is that it leads everyone to actually believe their lives are the least bit interesting to everyone else.

    4. Re:What's wrong with social media? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just dont have the bread and circuses worked out yet like you have in the US.

      Change has to happen slowly here or it will be chaos.
      At least they are heading in the right direction unlike some countries at the moment.

    5. Re:What's wrong with social media? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Bread and circuses are basically antivenom.

  15. A flashmob by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    A flashmob in Tiananmen Square just for 10 seconds to take a few pictures and dissolve?

    That's the only thing coming to my mind.
    Is that what they are afraid?

  16. What if they went plaintext only? by ModernGeek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Imagine an Internet where anything that wasn't unencoded unicode or ascii where only recognizable dictionary words and standard protocols were allowed.

    Imagine everybody being restricted to running iDevices where they could not install any unauthorized software on their computers.

    Imagine that if it were encrypted, the government always had the private key, and the encryption was only there as a facade. The only public keys you'd have on your machine were the government's decoy keys.

    Imagine if all software developers were targeted by the government with surveillance and public scrutiny to ensure that no illegal tools were being built.

    It isn't that hard to foresee this future.

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
    1. Re:What if they went plaintext only? by neo-mkrey · · Score: 2

      A lot of people are already living in this future you describe. I will try and fight going there as long as possible.

    2. Re:What if they went plaintext only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are there now, almost. One popular social networking site will always reject PGP encrypted PMs between people as spam.

      Don't forget iDevices do not allow the user to remove trusted keys, so if $FRUIT trusts a CA, you have to trust them or don't play in their ballgame.

      Encryption is a facade on a lot of devices. With no control of the device, how can one be sure that it isn't allowing backdoor access to stored files? Some phones, this is easy to do. Others, good luck, as if the endpoint is monitored, no encryption can help.

    3. Re:What if they went plaintext only? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      It isn't that hard to foresee this future.

      We're practically there already. Give it another ten years and you will have a generation of programmers whose only conception of a computer is a gated iDevice, and a general public who were never able to see the difference anyway.

      It's only a matter of time before ISPs introduce rate deals for those using specific devices/apps, with hard coded restrictions on what can actually be connected to. The result will be an increase in ratesa and fees for everyone who wants a general present day standard connection. At that point, the internet as we know it will no longer exist.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:What if they went plaintext only? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      So you read the NSA guide to computers and computer protocols I see.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    5. Re:What if they went plaintext only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine one Rogue hacker wronged one too many times seeking justice on their own terms taking society back to the stone age with a simple shell script.

      Overconfidence in meekness breeds weakness.

      The powers that be need to keep the facade of freedom afloat, lest genus turn their attention toward futile endeavors.

    6. Re:What if they went plaintext only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, eyes closed. It's a bit fuzzy, wait I see something. Its Apple, Apple have taken over the world, Oh the tyranny.

  17. Classic IT moment by imatter · · Score: 2

    I picture some crazy politician in China running over to the wall and yanking the ethernet right out of socket, most likely stripping the wires in the process. This happened to me while I was investigating a compromised FTP server. IT guy walked in yanked the cable right out of the wall.

    1. Re:Classic IT moment by imatter · · Score: 2

      Oh, I should add... that didn't help my investigation.

  18. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Jahta · · Score: 2

    That's like saying we shouldn't have had a Civil Rights movement because at least we weren't killing our minorities like Germany did; we were just oppressing them.

    "Y is worse than X" does not mean that X is not also bad.

    Very true. "We're not winning the race to the bottom" is no cause for celebration.

  19. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the point is that it is easier to come to hate an idolized figure. When the idol, be it a hero in a comic book or nation, does something to tarnish your perfected view of what they are, it turns into disgust and hate much easier than if something you don't like does it.

    The perfect USA viewed as a kid and told about as a kid, reveals what is under the national propaganda (be honest, every nation does this) and the disillusionment evokes a stronger counter-reaction.

  20. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by maharvey · · Score: 2

    Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

    Are they? Or are they just further along in their plans? Everything that other countries are doing, your govt wants to do, and would if they thought they could get away with it. No govt is better than others, just some leashes are shorter than others.

  21. either that or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't want their folks to provide easy info for the NSA to sniff.

  22. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

    I don't think that's what he's saying; rather, he's mocking those who do make that kind of argument.

    I've seen it happen on slashdot where an article about chinese censorship brings posts (that even get high moderation) that talk about how the US government is supposedly worse.

    Doesn't happen a lot these days, but during the Bush years it was obligatory as part of any post about foreign government censorship on slashdot.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  23. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Don't you worry, I sprinkle it liberally all over the countries that deserve it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  24. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    This is China. Communist China. You kinda expect it to be oppressive, backwards, anti-liberty and stuff. Or so my propaganda minister told me.

    But in the shiny beacon of freedom, liberty and happiness for everyone that the US is, it is very shocking to read anything like that.

    And yes, we really need a sarcasm tag.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Yes, but China is way further away than the US, and its policies have a lot less impact on me than the ones in the US. Not only because the US is a more important economy partner of my country, but also because our politicians here are mostly "monkey see, monkey do" when it comes to the US. Even aside of "treaties" (aka adhesion contracts) where they're pretty much forced to do their bidding, they tend to mimic what they see across the pond with some faithfulness that is rather terrifying.

    So if China sticks a government surveillance cam up everyone's ass it will by no margin affect me as much as if the US started to ponder thinking about putting one on every porch.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  26. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see the Chinese shills have modded you into oblivion, as expected.

  27. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    But then who would make all the stuff we buy, but refuse to pay American workers a decent living wage to produce so we export it to reduce production costs while maximizing the companies profits and then bitch cause there are no more jobs for Americans.

    Argghhh it's so confusing.

    Seriously China is not the monster it once was. I'd say them relaxing their economic controls as well as the restrictions on the number of children is a huge step forward. Not to mention the economic growth the countries had due to all the manufacturing that got imported there.

    Also keep in mind the last few times bat shit crazy North Korea said "we're gonna bomb" China has distanced itself from a country that was once their ally.

    I see them as having come a long way from where they were during the Tienanmen days.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  28. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    At least with Khan he never stayed in everyone's back pocket all the time.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  29. China is an incompetent version of the West by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A tin-pot dictator in a third world hell hole is renown for locking up people who merely openly mock him with jokes at his expense. BUT in a first world hell hole, the 'anger' of the sheeple is DISSIPATED by comedy shows on TV that 'roast' the most powerful leaders of the nation with the nastiest critical material.

    An incompetent police state looks to create uniformed government goons that create fear in the heart of every citizen. A Blair/Obama police state, on the other hand, educates the sheeple to think THEY are the ones demanding the changes to their society.

    Take the UK. The mainstream media is centrally controlled, of course, with the owners of every major media corporation being part of the establishment. The mainstream media comes in various SYNTHETIC FLAVOURS, so each type of sheeple (say 'liberal', or 'socialist', or 'conservative', or 'elitist', or 'old school working class' or whatever) can find an outlet that seems to match his/her world view.

    When those that rule the UK want new laws or powers in a particular direction, they don't simply impose such changes on the sheeple- no, they spend a year or two running carefully crafted media campaigns that APPEAR to represent some genuine grassroots concern. The people of the UK rarely get an impression that higher forces are pulling the strings, or that the campaigns in their newspapers of choice represent political PR actions crafted at the highest levels.

    Britain is about to get the most censored Internet of any major nation on the planet, INCLUDING China. Indeed Rupert "Fox News" Murdoch (the ultra-extremist-right-wing media baron who PARTNERED with Bill Gates to create the inBloom system that places EVERY CHILD IN THE USA under full surveillance monitoring every aspect of their lives), has just introduced the most draconian ISP level censorship to his 'Sky' internet service.

    You know those ultra-extreme Internet filter programs that schools and companies can use to eliminate access to almost every non-mainstream Internet site? Every ISP in the UK must have such filters OPERATING AT THE DNS LEVEL OF THE ISP before the end of 2014. At the moment, the adult bill payer has the 'option' to disable aspects of the filter, although it is notable that even if the user chooses the "18" setting, massive censorship is still active (to get uncensored access, the user must opt to go 'beyond' the '18' setting, and disable the filter in its entirety).

    Now before the vile shills step in with their "what is wrong with filters under user control", I will point out the nasty consequences.
    1) Britain has had this system on pretty much ALL mobile phone access to the Internet for ages now. To disable SOME of the filtering, the phone owner has to contact his phone company directly, and go through a very nasty tedious process, usually involving lots of direct contact with employees. The ability to simply select the level of censorship via a control page online is purposely NOT provided.

    2) The filter system coming (arrived) in the UK immediately implies that functional methods that bypass the filter (VPN, use of proxies, etc) need to be criminalised. The UK will run 'scare' stories in the tabloid press expressing outrage at the ease with which 'children' can use such methods to avoid the filters.

    3) The UK filter system defaults to BANNING alternative sources of information, making it clear that decent people ONLY use services like the BBC. Far from targeting 'extreme' material, the filter system targets anything outside the mainstream. The implication is that "the tall poppy needs to have its head removed".

    4) The UK filter system is centralised. In other words, a central authority has EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE of the current level of censorship in any online household. Even though the householder is (currently) in charge of the settings, the choices made by the household are government knowledge. This allows the coming tabloid scares about "abusive households deactivate filters even when children there have access to the Internet"

    1. Re:China is an incompetent version of the West by watcher-rv4 · · Score: 0

      Looks like V for Vendetta. England Prevails!

  30. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Hitler Test:

    http://therebel.org/news/kaminski/the-hitler-test/

  31. wide scale monitoring to prevent bad driving by Pseudonymus+Bosch · · Score: 1
    --
    __
    Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
    GW Bu
  32. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    The key part of the parent comment was:

    --->Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

    Yes but, George Bush, republicans, NSA. USA... evil. We must not forget about this.

  33. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    The key part of the parent comment was:

    --->Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

    Vitriol is wasted on countries where you do not live. Why should the Chinese government care about the opinion of a random American? Effort should be focused where it is most likely to make a difference.

  34. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought China had an enlightened and open government. I mean, isn't that why Snowden ran to them first? Surely the self-professed hero wouldn't just run to the first oppressive adversary of the US who spies on its own people. That would be so much against his principles. Otherwise he'd just be a lying hypocrite. Say it ain't so Ed!

  35. China continues to occupy Tibet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which the Communist Party organized back in 1949.

    China is also in the United Nations Council for Human Rights

    System Fail. Please Reboot.

    1. Re:China continues to occupy Tibet... by lil_DXL · · Score: 1

      And TIbet has been part of China for 800 years. Another little fact dumb westerners prefer to ignore.

    2. Re:China continues to occupy Tibet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how long have the cia been operating in Uigher areas of China?
      Yeah, the Chinese would love to live in Afghanistan, cuz we brough `em FREEDUMB!
        shucks, let`s go everywhere and build APARTHEID WALLs with firebases at intervals...
      That`ll teach them Chinese!

  36. hmmmm by Pav · · Score: 2

    Sooo... you're comparing a state actor with a bunch of terrorists who flew into buildings. The Japanese had to lose a war for years to get that desperate, and even then they had vastly more resources than those (late) terrorists. In 2001 how much popular support did the terrorists have? If I remember the almost universal condemnation from the muslim world I'd say "bugger all"... those terrorists had already worn out their welcome perpetrating violence in home societies. Ten years later and their fortunes have completely reversed - they're popular, the chances of glorious martyrdom are high, and Anti-US feeling is growing even in Europe and Asia. I wonder how that happened.

  37. Who cares? by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    In China, the power cares that you could disseminate information and mobilize society. In western countries you can disseminate information and mobilize society, but the power does not care. At all.

  38. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden ran there first because he knew he wouldnt be handed straight back (If he went to a snivelling eurotrash country) or executed (South American country)

  39. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes all republicans everywhere are eeeeeeevvvviiiiiilllll

  40. Economic and security impacts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    China has local versions of all the popular online programs like youtube facebook skype ebay etc.
    It seems sensible forcing Chinese people to use home grown versions as it helps the Chinese economy. In the long run these companies will be quite valuable. Additionally why would China want to give all the juicy information to the NSA easily, when they can collect it all for themselves.

  41. Re:BUT SNOWDEN by AbominousSalad · · Score: 1

    Speaking on behalf of U.S. citizens, other countries are not our responsibility.

    --
    Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"