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."

34 of 162 comments (clear)

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

    Posting to undo accidental mod.

  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 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.
    3. 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.

  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: 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
    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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!
    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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.
    11. 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!
    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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 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!
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.

  14. 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.