Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

China Wants US-Owned Hotels to Censor Internet

Posted by timothy on Mon May 05, 2008 06:53 AM
from the because-china's-an-autocracy-that's-why dept.
Censorship Government The Internet Politics
jp_papin writes "The Chinese government is demanding that US-owned hotels there filter Internet service during the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing, US Senator Sam Brownback has alleged. The Chinese government is requiring US-owned hotels to install Internet filters to 'monitor and restrict information coming in and out of China,' Brownback said Thursday. 'This is an insult to the spirit of the games and an affront to American businesses,' he said. 'I call on China to immediately rescind this demand.' US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he wasn't aware of those specific requests from the Chinese government, but Brownback said he got the information on Internet filtering from 'two different reliable but confidential sources.' The State Department is apparently continuing dialog with China about freedom of expression."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: China wants US-owned hotels to filter Internet by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.

China Wants US-Owned Hotels to Censor Internet 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • A senator quoting "reliable but confidential" sources on the internet? It's most likely from his pal, the Nigerian Prince, and also that nice wife of Mbutu Seke-seke. I've gotten reliable but confidential email from them, too, but they asked me not to talk to anyone about it.

      • Re:"Reliable but confidential" sources? (Score:5, Funny)

        by Thanshin (1188877) on Monday May 05 2008, @08:27AM (#23299710)

        The summary would be slightly clarified by replacing "on" with "about":
        I disagree:

        The Chinese government is requiring US-owned hotels to install Internet filters to 'maboutitor and restrict informatiabout coming in and out of China,' Brownback said Thursday. 'This is an insult to the spirit of the games and an affraboutt to American businesses,' he said. 'I call about China to immediately rescind this demand.' US State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he wasn't aware of those specific requests from the Chinese government, but Brownback said he got the information about Internet filtering from 'two different reliable but caboutfidential sources.' The State Department is apparently cabouttinuing dialog with China about freedom of expression."
  • I'm failing to see why this is a shock.

    Do these US senators expect Chinese hotels in the US to follow US law? If so, then why the shock?

    • Re:China wants hotels in China to follow Chinese L (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05 2008, @07:06AM (#23299024)
      The way I see it, someone didn't do a proper business risk review when they made an investment in China, and now they are seeking help because things are not working as they planned.

    • Do these US senators expect Chinese hotels in the US to follow US law? If so, then why the shock?


      Hell, a lot of hotels in the U.S. aren't even owned by U.S. companies, their owned by the Japanese. That's true, at least, of every single hotel in Hawaii.

      Of course we expect these hotels to operate in accordance with U.S. law. Of course, the thing is that the Japanese tend to always seek excellenece in their endeavors -- and, in their view, excellence includes strict compliance with the law.

      OTOH, many hotels owned by American companies and individuals don't operate in accordance with U.S. law -- cleanliness standards that aren't up to state and federal health codes, employing undocumented workers as housekeeping staff.

      So uhh...what is it they're screaming and handwaving about again?
    • The shock comes from China's promise to bolster freedom of expression and human right during the Olympic Games when Beijing was chosen a few years ago.
      • Why is this marked funny? Back in 2001 during their Beijing hosting bid, China promised precisely NOT to do this. They also promised total freedom of movement and reporting for international press, which they have also broken (see: Tibet.) China is hoping you all have short memories, but I forget nothing. I wish I could link to a news article with all the stuff they promised, but going back that far most sites charge for access.

        • Re:China wants hotels in China to follow Chinese L (Score:4, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05 2008, @09:57AM (#23300748)
          http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_299.pdf [olympic.org]

          THEME 16: COMMUNICATIONS
          AND MEDIA SERVICES
            Concept & Communication
          The Beijing communications strategy is based on
          a desire to provide greater opportunities for more
          people to share the excitement of the Olympic
          Games.
          It was confirmed to the Commission that there
          will be no restrictions on media reporting and
          movement of journalists up to and including
          the Olympic Games.
        • If there is one thing that reporters really don't like it is having their ability to speak and report freely curtailed. You can bet your bottom dollar that if China follows through with this policy then they will be called out on it by western journalists during the games and reminded of their previous assurances. The 2008 Beijing Olympics are shaping up to be the most politically charged games in a generation, even the Moscow games of 1980 and the subsequent Soviet boycott of the Los Angeles games in 1984 did not draw as much world wide attention and controversy as the upcoming Beijing games have. The Chinese are proving to the world once again that they have a tin ear for international public relations with their handling of the torch relay and the Tibet issue.

            • Re:China wants hotels in China to follow Chinese L (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05 2008, @11:16AM (#23301740)
              Given that the very act of a torch relay (not the use of the Torch itself, but the relay) came about as Nazi propaganda for the 1936 Olympics, I think it's a bit short-sighted to say that the political protests surrounding this year's relay are a "disgrace." I think that the athletes should be able to compete all they want, free of political pull, but the relay is historically a political act.
    • Because they are obliged to not censor during the Olympics. This would actually be one of the things that would get the EU and the US to reconsider their participation in the games, Tibet certainly won't. The Olympic committee (I believe it may be one of those preconditions of holding the games) is obliging China to not restrict (at least) journalists.
      To be honest they should just wait until the games begin, then censor everyone themselves. Which they already can and do.

      We'll censor our athletes, cause we

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by clodney (778910)
      ArsTechnica has an article on this topic, and they point out that the allegations don't make any sense - Internet access in China is already filtered at the ISP level.

      Unless these hotels are buying direct connections to a provider outside of China (and why would they?), they are already behind the Chinese Great Firewall and subject to its filtering.

      Conversely, for China to honor its agreement about allowing unfettered Internet access during the Olympics, they will need to open up the wall for these hotels.
    • This isn't a shock. It's called putting pressure on the Chinese to grant basic human rights to their citizens by using the Olympics. Sorry that you don't feel it's important.

    • Bad Reasoning (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05 2008, @09:47AM (#23300628)
      I've seen this argument a lot, and it is terrible. It goes like this:

      "We expect foreign businesses to follow our rules. Therefore we can't criticize anyone else's rules."

      I hope the flaw is apparent. We ALWAYS have the right to complain about nasty rules -- including our own nasty rules! That's right, if we force foreign businesses to do awful things then we SHOULD be criticized for it. Likewise, we have the right and duty to call out other countries when they pull this stuff.

  • skeptical (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quenda (644621) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:02AM (#23298998)
    This is a bit hard to believe. How could the hotels possibly censor any better than the gov't backbones?

    And the Chinese have never really worried about foreigners with VPNs. Its the locals that need to be kept in control.

    I think this senator got his information from the same reliable sources that found proof for Iraqi WMDs.

    • Re:skeptical (Score:5, Informative)

      by spooje (582773) <spooje@hotmail.cGINSBERGom minus poet> on Monday May 05 2008, @07:23AM (#23299142) Homepage
      Most filtering isn't done at the backbone level, it's done at the small ISPs that are located in the major apartment complexes. The government gives them directives and it's up to them to impliment them. This is why some complexes will have access to sites (like wikipedia) while others in the same city won't.

    • Re:skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)

      by audunr (906697) on Monday May 05 2008, @08:17AM (#23299608)
      While visiting an Internet cafe in China, a friend of mine used her university VPN connection to be able to browse sites that her university has subscription access to. Some time later, a guy comes into the cafe and asks her to leave. Politely, but still, if the reason was her VPN use then that's really, really scary. And probably happens every day...

  • seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by night_flyer (453866) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:02AM (#23299000) Homepage
    what did the US (and any other freedom loving person) expect when giving the Communist Chinese the Olympics?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ngarrang (1023425)
      Yeah, I have to wonder, as well. Maybe the world was so naive as to believe the Olympics would change China's way? China doesn't care what the world thinks and has proven this time and time again. What political expediency was hoped to be gained from this move has failed.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by maxume (22995)
          There is no need to lump the hundreds of millions of people who don't care about the Olympic torch in with the few thousand who caused a ruckus.

        • Re:seriously... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Serious Callers Only (1022605) on Monday May 05 2008, @08:04AM (#23299506)

          They've removed lot's[sic] of sites from the Great Firewall of China, for instance the English Wikipedia, after western politicians said that a change like that would reflect well upon China.
          This is perhaps true, but seems unlikely frankly. Blacklists in western countries tend to be for hate speech or child pornography, which I find reasonable (though some may not). They are not comparable in scale or subject matter to those in China.

          Defending it's people from ethnic cleansing [economist.com] by the Tibet people against the Han-Chinese population
          While preventing race riots is an admirable goal, looking at the deeper causes of this conflict is in order. Tibet has been flooded by Han in the last decade as part of a pacification project by the central government. That has understandably lead to widespread resentment there. We'll probably never know the true story because no journalists are allowed to report from that area, I wonder why?

          Us Westeners sabotaging the path of the eternal fire, or not preventing Tibet terrorists from doing so, on it's way to Beijing as a way to get back at them for stopping ethnic cleansing isn't exactly helping matters - especially not when it's done by traveling across the world, just to beat up a girl in a wheelchair [wikipedia.org] - because that's usually the best way to get sympathies.
          'Westerners' are not some monolithic block to be denounced as ox ghosts and snake demons, and your treatment of the subject doesn't do it justice. There have been no Tibetan terrorists active in the west (taking terrorism to mean violent action against civilians), only peaceful protest - maybe some of that got out of hand, but it's hardly more than rowdy protests. Frankly given your ill-informed comments I doubt you're from Sweden, or you'd know better. Are there even Tibetan terrorists (Race riots are not terrorism)?

          To make matters worse, I know the largest Swedish newspapers publish Photoshop jobs (publishing photos of a large group of Chinese polices - but failing to include the even larger group of angry activists next to them) and pure lies (pictures of Nepalese officials treating activists badly, and claiming that they're Chinese) as proof of how evil the Chinese government is.
          These are not photoshop jobs, they're unwarranted editorialising (i.e. cropping out protesters) and incompetence (protests in Nepal misused), not evidence of a global conspiracy. If the Chinese government was interested in the truth, they'd open up the province to reporters and allow them to report. I find that far more interesting than any bad reporting in the west (of which there is plenty, along with the good;learn to discriminate).

          After this, I have no problems seeing why one would try to limit the access for one's people to these lies - the only thing it would result in is civil war, something that is never good, and would hurt the Chinese process towards giving the people a decent standard of living, freedom of speech, and, eventually, democracy.
          While the Chinese people's destiny is their own problem, and I agree this intervention by US Senators is hypocritical given the problems with democratic process and a free press in that country, the Chinese government is not shielding their people from lies, and is actively encouraging xenophobia and stoking nationalism by producing some of the broad caricatures you have so ably aped in your post. The cultural revolution is not so long ago, and we're seeing the same sort of tactics again, but directed outwards toward other nations. If you believe everything you just said I'm afraid you're a pawn in a game between governments.
    • IOC doesn't even pretend to care about freedom. All they care about is money, while pretending to care about sport. [ Quite unlike the US, which only cares about money, while pretending to care about freedom. ]

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sm62704 (957197)
      Lots of questions, no answers. How ar ethese "US Hotels"? They're on the other side of the globe from the US!

      I wish we were as intolerant of the multinational corporations as the Chineese. But then again, Sony and BP and the like all run the US's goivernment anyway, so it's not surprising.

      But I wish we, the people still had control of our government. I'd sutre like to see more factories here.

        • Re:seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by sm62704 (957197) on Monday May 05 2008, @10:50AM (#23301428) Journal
          can you tell me what sort of government regulation (short of outright nationalization) would have prevented the loss of manufacturing jobs to other countries?

          Sure. You could remove all tax breaks from any company building plants elsewhere. You can lay tarriffs. You can pass laws preventing non-citizens from owning all or part of any US business. You can use the "bully pulpit" to name and try and shame owners of companies that move factories overseas.

          There is even more that could be done, given the will.

          Of course, to do this you would have to have not sold the US government to business interests in the first place, and you would have to tear down the US's national religion (worship of money).

  • On the other hand. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deniable (76198) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:03AM (#23299010)
    I'm sure the American government has never asked foreign owned businesses to do anything they wouldn't like. I love the smell of politics in the morning. It smells like hypocrisy.

  • Their country (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nighty5 (615965) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:07AM (#23299026)
    Their rules.

    If you don't like it, then leave.

    If you want somebody to blame, then direct it to the International Olympic Committee. Each country took a vote and China was selected.

    Like or not....

    • Re:Their country (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Monday May 05 2008, @08:35AM (#23299778)
      Not a good argument. For many chinese trapped in china, leaving is not an option. Free speech is a universal and inalienable right of all human beings no matter in which country they live. It is our responsibility, and that of the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,to pressure their government through diplomatic means to make reforms to guarantee, the people free speech and that they will not be punished by the government for what they say.

  • Why not pull out our athletes until... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikelieman (35628) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:07AM (#23299028) Homepage
    Why not pull out our athletes out of the games until China adopts a default policy of Freedom and Liberty?

    Fuck that Censorshit!

    I'll take good old US Style Blanket Surveillance any-day!

    Thanks AT&T! For keeping us safe by spying on us for the Bush Gang -- even if it is completely unlawful to do so!

  • Happening already. (Score:5, Informative)

    by martin-k (99343) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:08AM (#23299038) Homepage
    How is that different from what's happening now? I stayed at the Hilton in Beijing (supposedly property of an American company) last year, and they of course filtered the net connection. No boobie pages, some political pages didn't work; even SSH connections were impossible for one whole day during my stay.
  • When in China, do as the Chinese wants you to.
    Don't like it? Then don't do business there.

    While I don't like censorship in the least, I also don't like US hegemony either -- either by the government or the businesses. China -- its people and its government -- need to work out their own issues with regards to privacy and censorship and freedom of access to information.

    Oh well -- China has the US by its financial balls, so all I see coming out of this is a bunch of whining on the US part with little to no real action.

    And of course, the question of what form any possible "action" would take, anyway? Pulling out of the Olympics? That's not fair to all those athletes who devoted a good portion of their lives preparing for this event.

    Gotta love geo-politics.

  • Great firewall of China (Score:3, Insightful)

    by weave (48069) * on Monday May 05 2008, @07:19AM (#23299106) Journal
    Aren't all of these hotels behind the Great Firewall of China anyway? How are they getting their Internet connections if not? Something doesn't sound quite right about this. I don't see how they can NOT be filtered, even if they didn't want it.

  • Let's work on freedom of expression here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05 2008, @07:20AM (#23299110)
    Let's work on freedom of expression in the USA before we go telling China how to run their country. It's sick in this day and age that you can get arrested for flag burning, protesting outside of a "free speech zone", or because you criticize the rulers a little too loudly. Until we fix these things, I think a little Internet filtering in another country is the least of our worries.

  • The Original Press Release (Score:3, Informative)

    by value_added (719364) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:21AM (#23299126)
    The press release can be read in its entirety on the official Sam Brownback [senate.gov] site.

    Seems a fair enough position for a politician to take, given that he sits on one or more subcomittees that are involved with international/human rights types of issues.

    On the other hand, he is a Republican.

    And he's from Kansas.

    If you're not prepared to fill in your own joke, the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] on him should give you some ideas.
    • Having grown up in Kansas and voted against him every chance I had I don't like the guy, and the company he keeps.

      That being said..

      one of his children is adopted from China. he puts his money where his mouth is sometimes, and I respect him for that sometimes.

      But ...

      Just look at his voting record. He's voted to force the installation of the same software China wants to use. It seems extremely hypocritical and headline grabbing move to me, instead of something true.

      We are no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that's the way it is and we like it apparently, because no one will make any effort. We like being the land of the monitored and home of the scared. It's not a big deal, and it's to stop the terrorists.

      China's doing it because they're mean. We're doing it to protect you, so we're ok. That's the politicians logic for you.

  • Newsflash! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by johannesg (664142) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:27AM (#23299166)
    In China, even *Americans* must obey Chinese law! Gee, who would have thought?

    Don't like it? Your options are:

    1. Don't do business there.
    2. Ask them to change their laws. Good luck with that.
    3. The Iraq thing. Good luck with that too.

    A hotel is not an embassy; Chinese law applies within its walls.

  • welcome to the multi-valued world (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:27AM (#23299168) Homepage Journal
    No matter how much you dislike the chinese government's position, what this is nevertheless is enforcing rules on them, in their own country. Who cares if the hotels in question are "US-owned"? Would you accept that "chinese-owned" factories in, say, Texas, operate according to chinese rules?

    If you start a hotel in China, you know that you're in China, and that chinese laws and customs apply to you. You may not like them, for whatever reason. You may think they are inhuman and evil, but they are the law of the land.

    If you don't like it, there's a simple solution: Don't do business there!.

    But no, our corporate masters want to have it both ways. None of the large international corporations would want to leave the huge chinese market to the competitors.

    I don't support the chinese government in their position on censorship, oppression or the liberal application of the death penalty, but I do support them on their strong stand towards international corporations and anyone else messing with their internal politics. I think right now China is the only government not falling over backwards when some RIAA or Microsoft comes calling, and instead reminding them just who owns the land and the tanks.

  • And in related news.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by r_jensen11 (598210) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:31AM (#23299202)
    Dutch MP's are demanding that the US lifts its ban on prostitutes, calling it an affront to capitalism's oldest profession. Film at 11

  • What about the censorship right here in the US? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Eravnrekaree (467752) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:34AM (#23299230)
    It seems rather hypocritical for US politicians to criticize censorship in China when they refuse to do anything to stop censorshop right here in the US and often support it. I am referring to the lack of action being taken on net neutrality and prohibuting corporations from censoring the internet. People think that because its a corporation its not a real threat, but it is. These corporations become de facto governments when they can control so many resources, such as major communications infrastructure, these corporations through their policies can have the same effect as government in effectively limiting free speech.This is why ISPs must be common carriers and required to carry all information over them verbatim.

    Sometimes it seems the real reason the politicians criticize china is to cover up the fact that they allow censorship right here, and are representatives of the corporations that carry out this censorship. Politicians in the US take campaign donations from corporations, essentially the corporations elect them and they represent the corporations interest. Whoever has the best funding has the best chance of winning so corporations can control elections through who they give donations to. Add to that most of the US media is controlled by a few large corporate conglomerates who basically can filter and conspire to propogandise the ignorant and gullible public. People are not really the ones making the decisions anymore, the process is controlled by corporations and special interests, the american people are brainwashed into thinking they have a choice, when they really do not. You have a media which basically controls most of their information, and can tell them who to vote for, by excluding or including information you can control the available information they have to work with and thus their decision making. The way you make people think they have a choice is by giving them options, but controlling those options. A politicians campaign can easily be destroyed if their funding is withdrawn and the corporation and establishment can weed out those it does not like (like Kucinich, Paul, etc). The media simply ignores them or gives them a fraction of the attention of other preferred candidates.

  • Why is this only a big deal now? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by forgotten_my_nick (802929) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:38AM (#23299264)
    News flash for those that don't know. This is old news.

    The "westerners" only hotels in China are censored. It is a little less lax then normal Chinese hotels (for example you can watch BBC). But there is censorship and even other rules, for example the only chinese allowed on the hotels premises when I was there had to be working in the hotel.

    The censorship is more directed at the population though rather then to external sources.

    Lastly it is their country, even if like me you don't agree with this. If you don't like, then don't go to the country.
  • In February 2006, the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton hotel (a franchise of the Sheraton group) in Mexico City was ordered by the US Treasury Department to throw out a group of Cuban officials who were staying there, because their presence violated US law and the Sheraton Group was an American company. In complying with the requirement, the hotel broke local law and faced $500,000 fines before the situation was smoothed over.

  • âoeThe Connection Has Been Resetâ (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jeremy Erwin (2054) on Monday May 05 2008, @09:02AM (#23300098) Journal
    From the March 2008 Atlantic Monthly [theatlantic.com]

    In reality, what the Olympic-era visitors will be discovering is not the absence of China's electronic control but its new refinement--and a special Potemkin-style unfettered access that will be set up just for them, and just for the length of their stay. According to engineers I have spoken with at two tech organizations in China, the government bodies in charge of censoring the Internet have told them to get ready to unblock access from a list of specific Internet Protocol (IP) addresses--certain Internet cafes, access jacks in hotel rooms and conference centers where foreigners are expected to work or stay during the Olympic Games. (I am not giving names or identifying details of any Chinese citizens with whom I have discussed this topic, because they risk financial or criminal punishment for criticizing the system or even disclosing how it works. Also, I have not gone to Chinese government agencies for their side of the story, because the very existence of Internet controls is almost never discussed in public here, apart from vague statements about the importance of keeping online information "wholesome.")


  • Whats the point of the Olympics anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sun.Jedi (1280674) on Monday May 05 2008, @09:21AM (#23300290) Journal
    Since the issue of net filtering and censorship in China is largely a non-topic, I asked myself why should the Olympics make any difference when discussing individual Countries Law and expecting exceptions to those Laws. In short, what is so great about the present day Olympics?

    - Tradition? Seems to me the original spirit of the games has long been lost. It's all about advertising, ratings, and the almighty dollar bill. $10 hot dog, anyone?
    - Bragging rights? Aren't there 'World organizations' for this stuff already? Don't the best of the best already compete against each other?
    - Excitement? Watching some muscle-head lob a 15 pound aerodynamic (sortof) rock downrange just doesn't have the same pizazz as watching CNN-cam on the front end of a Sat-Killer [news.com]. Ditto on the ice thing with rocks and brooms (not the vulcanized rock [wikipedia.org], the other one [wikipedia.org]).
    - Nationalism? If they were proud of their country, why do some come to the USA to get professionally paid [wikipedia.org] only to be shipped back home to wear a different uniform for a few weeks? Seems hypocritical.
    - Achievement? Oh joy of joys, yet another feel good story about how a gymnast with a hangnail toughed it out. Compare that to the tanks [sinodefence.com] 'guarding' parking lot, I'm uninspired.
    - Pride? My valuable medals [google.com]. 'Nuff said.

    • Re:Following Chinese laws on Chinese soil? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AndersOSU (873247) on Monday May 05 2008, @07:32AM (#23299212)
      I wouldn't worry about it too much. Senator Brownback just wants the internet requests from American hotels to move unimpeded through the NSA operated rooms at the telecoms.

      (I'd be much less depressed if I were going for a funny mod...)

      • Re:Following Chinese laws on Chinese soil? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cryfreedomlove (929828) on Monday May 05 2008, @09:24AM (#23300332)
        That's an easy little pot shot for you to take from whatever comfortable perch you are posting from.

        As for me, I'm against censorship. If China does it then I am against it. If the USA, where I live, does it then I am against it. Injustice by my government, in this case 'NSA operated rooms at the telecoms' does not deny me the right or obligation to speak out against injustice anywhere else. So, I denounce this move by China. Not because they are the 'other team', but because censorship is wrong, period. I also denounce those little NSA rooms at telecoms in the USA, because censorship is wrong.

        I'm motivated by justice, not geo political team sport. How about you?

            • Re:Following Chinese laws on Chinese soil? (Score:4, Informative)

              by AndersOSU (873247) on Monday May 05 2008, @03:10PM (#23304344)
              First, thanks for the information. Second, I'm astonished that Brownback isn't dutifully towing Bush's line. Since he is highly ranked in my list of least favorite senators, I assumed (my bad) that he couldn't possibly be even beginning to approach the right side of this issue.

              That said, Brownback's criticism is very mild, basically saying we should hold hearings, and he voted yea [senate.gov] on the deeply flawed Senate FISA bill that grants the telecoms immunity for their illegal spying on American citizens.
    • actually theres a section in the foreign policy act that pretty much says "if you fuck up in other countries your at their mercy" its honestly something like "all americans are required to follow the country they are visiting's laws and if they commit a crime they are subject to their laws and regulations" which of course means if we try to bring a gun into another country and they have anti gun laws your either going to get turned away at the border or arrested within the border then the only right you hav

        • Re:Following Chinese laws on Chinese soil? (Score:4, Informative)

          by Zeinfeld (263942) on Monday May 05 2008, @09:05AM (#23300134) Homepage
          Wow, an old-style Usenet kook! Here on Slashdot! Take a picture, quickly! See how he starts by rationally discussing the subject at hand in the first paragraph, before introducing an unrelated issue in the second that refers to a shared experience that nobody else had.

          The second paragraph was a direct response to the first poster making an ironic reference to Americans expecting the right to keep and bear arms to extend to other countries. The great talk.politics.guns roadshow was anything but a singular experience. There must have been at least ten thousand people reading that particular thread.

          There we were discussing the Archers and the Montana militia pops up to tell us we are living in a dictatorship [google.com] (the actual McVeigh posts were removed from the Deja Feed but you can see the flavor of the 'argument'). Then one of them goes off and murders 200 people.

          The Internet is not like the regular news. In an Internet of a billion people you are going to meet a lot of kooks. But you are also going to find that there are a lot of people who have a direct connection to pretty much every major event. McVeigh spent his time between Wako and OKC building his bomb and spewing hate posts onto the Internet. He was not the most prominent gun nut, but he was pretty prominent.

          The connection here that you appear to be deliberately avoiding is that it is not actually that rare for Americans to have somewhat peculiar notions about foreign countries. Such as the idea that a 'US hotel' operating in China does not have to follow Chinese law and that this is somehow a political affront to the United States as if every Hilton and Marriott in the world was a kind of US Embassy.

    • Re:What would be cool is (Score:5, Informative)

      by Phybersyk0 (513618) <phybersyko.stormdesign@org> on Monday May 05 2008, @08:02AM (#23299472)
      This isn't too likely as many Chinese still do not own personal computers. Many obtain their access to the net via internet cafes. If you get your access at a cafe it kinds sucks because you are required to prove that you're 18 or older, which means you must present identification, which is recorded with the workstation you use and subsequently the IP address and time in which you used it.

      For home access in larger cities like Shanghai, adsl is the way to go, and you purchase time, and you get a static IP. Also traceable to you.

      I was in China for a couple of weeks immediately following the recent Tibet fracas (which is quite perplexing if you listen to all 3 sides of the discussion).

      Based on my personal observation, The "Great Firewall" isn't so much a firewall (which in my eyes connotes address/port blocking) but it's more the corporate content filter. Too many keywords and your transmission gets squelched.

      Example: The first day I tried to use myspace.com and I couldn't get a single word to load. The next day, Myspace would load, I could log in, but when I selected the option to update my personal Blog, I got half a page of unrendered HTML code. I didn't even bother after that.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.