Slashdot Log In
Human Rights and a Code of Conduct for China's Web
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:23 AM
from the try-to-play-well-with-others dept.
from the try-to-play-well-with-others dept.
Ian Lamont writes "Human Rights Watch is preparing a code of conduct that specifies how major Internet service providers and portal operators should deal with Internet censorship in China. An officer for the group expressed concern that the Chinese government is 'setting the standard on control of the Internet' and also singled out international companies working in China for preemptively blocking access in 'anticipation of requests from the government' rather than waiting for orders from Beijing to block access. China has recently blocked YouTube following the posting of videos about the Tibetan protests, but has been unable to completely stop the flow of Tibet-related information in and out of China, thanks in part to bloggers and others using spam tactics to bypass Chinese filters."
Related Stories
[+]
China Blocks YouTube Over Tibet Videos 343 comments
Screaming Cactus writes "Internet users in China were blocked from seeing YouTube.com on Sunday after dozens of videos about protests in Tibet appeared on the site. 'Chinese leaders encourage Internet use for education and business but use online filters to block access to material considered subversive or pornographic. Foreign Web sites run by news organizations and human rights groups are regularly blocked if they carry sensitive information. Operators of China-based online bulletin boards are required to monitor their content and enforce censorship.' The blocking added to the communist government's efforts to control what the public saw and heard about protests that erupted Friday in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, against Chinese rule."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
corporate consciousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Because quarterly profits are the only yardstick by which management is rewarded / demoted all other considerations have gone out the window. As long as there is not direct link between ethics and profits I highly doubt any of this will make a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that it is termed a code of conduct seems to me like som
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
when it's actually *the corporation* that is filling the role of Big Brother? Thomas Jefferson predicted 200 years ago that too much money in the hands of just a few would lead to fewer freedoms for the average citizen. It is now "those few" that we call CEOs and CIOs that are doing the job of censorship.
Re:corporate consciousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new to Capitalism. There is nothing more evil than passing up money or turning down profit from any source. Wealth is worth any price. Monetary gain trumps everything. It doesn't matter who dies or how miserable people are, so long as you're making a profit.
Christianity isn't America's national religion like some Christian preachers claim, Capitali
Re:corporate consciousness (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just that. Management can be sued by shareholders if it intentionally enters a course of action that decreases profits, even if the action is ethical.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fiduciary duty != maximum profit with no ethics (Score:3, Interesting)
Management can be sued by shareholders if it intentionally enters a course of action that decreases profits, even if the action is ethical.
Blatantly incorrect.
The Board of Directors [wikipedia.org], and Management, DO have a responsibility to act in the best interests of shareholders, see Fiduciary Duty [wikipedia.org].
However, NOT to the extent that they must pursue every market in every industry in the world.
The Business Judgment Rule [wikipedia.org] protects the Board and Management from lawsuits about normal business decisions, such as:
Hyp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not call out the other governments first, K? (Score:2)
Look, the IOC with the blessings of governments around the world awarded China the Olympics. Just what in the hell were they thinking?
You bring up ethics and profits as if it were a Corporate issue, its not. Why should any Corporation care when world governments, including the UN, don't?
huh? Do we hold our elected officials and those of other countries to lower standards? Or is because we give into the id
Re: (Score:2)
You would expect it. I would expect it. However, welcome to the real Earth, where this doesn't happen. I think it may have once, perhaps the great Quaker companies of the 19th Century. These days, running a corporation is:
Olympic response (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Olympic response (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the Chinese government totally changes the way they do things, this is inevitable. There will be people taking advantage of the Olympics to do missionary work. There will be people taking advantage of the Olympics to publisize China's many indescretions.
How will the government respond? Are we going to have dozens of people arrested, imprisoned and/or deported? In a way, I almost hope we do, it would open the worlds eyes to just what is happens there, how restricted freedoms really are.
Parent
Re:Olympic response (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
The last time the Chinese government responded to a large gathering of popular dissent, which as you say will surely accompany a high profile global event such as the Olympics, they did it with tanks, tear gas, and machine guns.
I suspect that the government would have been much more moderate in the Tienanmen Square incident if the crowds protesting were as nationally diverse as the crowds at the Olympics.
That said, I'd be surprised if they would allow any international protester to remain in the country. I think they would also take some big steps to try to disallow any record of a protest to be aired domestically or internationally.
Re:Olympic response (Score:4, Insightful)
The authoritarian nature of the government probably hasn't changed, but quite a few things have- remember, that was 20 years ago. First, the explosion of portable digital devices- digital cameras, digital video cameras, cell phones, Blackberries, and laptops; second, the explosion of networks, including the Internet and the cellular network, to distribute digital data. Given the number of tourists they are expecting, Beijing will be under greater scrutiny than at any time in its history, and there will be no way to stop the videos once they get out. Third, Beijing is now linked to the United States and the rest of the world by trade. That puts the government in a bind: they want to maintain control, but they also want to keep the money rolling in, and a crackdown on any protests could harm trade with the West. We'll see what happens; the government crackdown in Tibet has been pretty effective, but Tibet isn't overrun with Westerners carrying video cameras and laptops.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As another poster has pointed out, that was almost 20 years ago. Governments, people, and circumstances change. Why would you think that "not much has changed since then"? (this is intended as a legitimat
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think that "not much has changed since then"? (this is intended as a legitimate question)
Many of the same people or their hand picked successors and protégés are still firmly in power, they have shown their willingness in the past to use the gun when faced with an afront or challenge to that power, and finally up until very recently in the grand scheme of things the Chinese viewed all outsiders and westerners in particular as "barbarians" or inferior peoples and this attitude has served to lessen their willingness to listen to external criticism from the "barbarians" concerning their
Re:Olympic response (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Olympic response (Score:5, Informative)
The only way that the Chinese government would listen to any outside influence would be strong economic sanctions tied to behavioral changes. And we rely on them so thoroughly at this point that sanctions strong enough to be noticed would be suicide...
Any ideas?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Spam? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not, but three lefts do.
American companies exporting censorware (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/opinion/09jardin.html [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The US is using China to beta test it. Sort of like how the US is using the UK to beta test that whole 1984 big brother thing that they have going on.
You soun
Or... (Score:2)
Or proxies? That seems like the obvious route to go to me.
like the geneva convention? (Score:4, Insightful)
human rights watch writing a code of conduct won't convince china of anything. it won't change its ways. if american companies didn't help them, they'd get someone else to help them, or do it themselves
what's more important to you? helping human rights in china? or shaming american companies? the shaming of american companies should be put aside in pursuit of the larger more noble goal: getting free imformation to chinese citizens
how do you do that? writing a code of conduct? preventing china from using your expertise to build their firewall?
no and no
you defeat the great firewall of china with better guerilla apps. anyone who care about this issue should forget about shaming codes of conduct or shushing american companies that helped the technocrats in beijing
instead what you do is you build proxy servers, ip obfuscators, p2p web traffic redirectors, content caching, etc., etc.: you wage war with the great firewall with china, you smuggle content around it, you render all of the technocrat's efforts to screen what chinese citizens see fruitless and pointless and a joke
that's where you put your effort
shaming colluding american companies or writing well-intentioned but pointless codes of conduct means nothing. results mean something
get to writing those guerilla apps if you really care about this issue. shaming american companies or writing ivory tower codes of conduct is pointless if you really want to help regular chinese escape their hermetically sealed tomb of sanitized braindead propaganda
Re: (Score:2)
Great post. And quite correct. The above quote is important, and those that have the ability need to do just that. Bear in mind that such things may be happening in your own country before long.
uh (Score:2)
yes, plenty obsess over that inch, but this is silly hysteria
i think it is far more fruitful to focus on that mile
Re: (Score:2)
And those who don't, don't really bother.
It's not like people in China are dying to know the dark side their government... most do, and due to one reason or the other, aren't particularly interested in digging further. Internet censorship is merely icing on the cake, so to speak. Yet most westerners act as if the Chinese were all sheep who believed 100% in government propaganda. Well, no.
Cens
let me get this straight (Score:3, Insightful)
i wish i could be more diplomatic, but i'm sorry i can't: you're a total moron if you really believe that. if you're just playing devil's advocate, you fail
you are basically making the argument that it doesn't matter how tainted or censored your media is. i'm sorry, you're not a moron. you
Re: (Score:2)
your position is that censorship and propaganda don't actually effect people's opinions, and people's opinions stand as they would whether they had completely unfettered access to info, or completely limited access to info
I never claimed that. My claim is that there isn't a "completely limited access to info", and that firewall circumvention tools don't really help. It *might* solve *some* of the symptoms, but the problem is much bigger than that, and those who tout firewall circumvention tools as a silver bullet simply misses the larger picture or problem.
Specifically my point is that this (at least now) isn't the case in China:
regular chinese escape their hermetically sealed tomb of sanitized braindead propaganda
Since you seem to completely misunderstand my post, your strawman rant on morons and stupid ass
i don't know who you are dude (Score:3, Insightful)
here's my point, across which all of your points break: the more access there is to more media sources, no matter what the source, and the more you are allowed to pursue that media without fear of repercussion or censure, the healthier the body politic, and the healthier the society
meanwhile, your points fall secondary to that, and they do not overrule my larger point. such that the conclusions you seem t
they'll never do that (Score:3, Insightful)
even if only the elite chinese get (censored) access to the outside world, it's still useful to write guerilla apps that help the elite get uncensored info. actually, that's the case now: the mass of the interior of china is still poor, only the rich and middle class on the coastal cities
Start in the USA first (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of a "code of conduct" for the ISPs (Score:4, Interesting)
SPAM tactics (Score:2)
Re:first post (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They bought the rights to do it.
Re:Hypocritical maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one cares of course, China's disregard for environmental and humane concerns of its own people give the rest of the world the cheapest goods.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Governments are only valid if they rule with the consent of the people. Otherwise, they can and must be destroyed.
To use a very bad example, what if the U.S. blocked access to sites which promote Al Qaeda's agenda? Would that be ok? Shouldn't we be allowed to s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What crack are you on? There are dozens of governments around the world which do not rule with the consent of the people, including ones the U.S. supports. Egypt come to mind? How about Saudi Arabia? Hell, we sent people to Syria to be tortured yet we criticize that governments rule of law. I don't see you or the U.S. government going after them because the people don't give the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally believe that we shouldn't be meddling in the affairs of others. That said,
Re:It's their country (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights? Governments have no rights. Rights are inherent to the person and not the state. They can neither be granted nor taken away by the state.
That said, Governments do have sovereignty which I agree that China has. However, the Chinese government does not have the right to torture, murder, or repress the freedom of its citizens. It is wrong and the practice should stop.
Now I will admit, I have a very relativistic western view on the matter, but I don't see how you can say that killing protesters even if they are violent is OK.
Even in the LA riots in the states we didn't have soldiers shooting people indiscriminately without attempts to use non-lethal methods.
At the same time, I will agree that its not our business to go into China forcefully with our military and force them to stop (or any nation for that matter) but it doesn't mean we shouldn't ignore the fact they do such a thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even something so basic as having the right to live is meaningless unless they can stop those that decide they don't have that right.
The reality is that moral arguments, the weight of public opinion, is founded on the threat that the public can pose. Some can choose to respect that power, but not everyone will, and clearly many governments do not.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't have rights, people have rights. Governments have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and coercion, by popular support or not.
Blocking access to Al Qaeda stuff...Not OK. No censorship is OK in a mature society (Pre-emptively punches slashdoter droning on about shouting fire in a crowded place. Not the same thing K)
Now censorship works in that it raises the bar high enough so that Joe 6-pack is too lazy to go hunting for the information. There ar
Re:It's their country (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be the first to admit that there are all kinds of shortcomings in the protection of human rights through international treaties, but the only point that I want to make here is that you are incorrect when you state that every government "has the right to dictate the rules within its boundaries". That right is no longer absolute, and in large part this is the result of governments providing the stick they are beaten with themselves by signing human rights treaties. It took only sixty years to get where we are now, so the utopian society you mention may be less than a thousand years away.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
* limited time offer. No purchase necessary. Offer void in Nebraska, Maryland, or where prohibited by law. Tibet and Free Tibet are registered trademarks of China Inc.