Chinese Claim Internet Censorship Modeled on West 266
ubermiester wrote to mention a NYT article reporting on a Chinese Press Briefing. At the event Liu Zhengrong, supervisor of Internet affairs for the Chinese State Council, stated that the state control of Internet access is based on Western models. From the article: "Mr. Liu said the major thrust of the Chinese effort to regulate content on the Web was aimed at preventing the spread of pornography or other content harmful to teenagers and children. He said that its concerns in this area differ minimally from those in developed countries. Human rights and media watchdog groups maintain that Chinese Web censorship puts greater emphasis on helping the ruling party maintain political control over its increasingly restive society. Such groups have demonstrated that many hundreds of Web sites cannot be easily accessed inside mainland China mainly because they are operated by governments, religious groups or political organizations that are critical of Chinese government policies or its political leaders."
Revolution (Score:2, Interesting)
iawtc. (Score:1, Interesting)
Won't someone please think of the children!?
Yup, definately modeled after Western bullshit.
carefully worded (Score:3, Interesting)
article: "If you study the main international practices in this regard you will find that China is basically in compliance with the international norm," he [the official] said. "The main purposes and methods of implementing our laws are basically the same."
purpose: to censor "harmful" parts of the Internet, no definition of "harmful"
method: firewalls and Internet minders, not necessarily censorship itself
Seems like you could come up a pretty nice comparision between the Chinese government and AOL blocking porn sites with a kid filter under such broad terms of discussion.
WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
He... is... nuts.
"Major U.S. companies do this and it is regarded as normal," Mr. Liu said. "So why should China not be entitled to do so?"
But he has a point here.
Our congressman are editing their own bios in wikipedia...
Bush is requesting personal data from Google and the likes...
And quite some people are getting fired for blogging...
This is strange. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's all a matter of style (Score:5, Interesting)
China is full of shit if they think there is any parallel between what the US does and what they do in terms of Internet censorship.
China's problem is that at some point they are going to have to turn around and face their internal problems in a constructive non-authoritarian manner. The US can have neo-Nazi websites because it has a stable political system that, while certainly not perfect, does a good job at keeping the masses content enough that rebellion doesn't linger on anyone's mind. China on the other hand has a political system where the masses have little say in governance. China has left the only opposition to government policies to be rebellion. As a result, China deals with constant (and little reported on) riots and instances of civil unrest that are completely alien to most Western governments.
A day of reckoning is coming for China, and their tardiness in opening up their government to oversight by the general populace is going to make this reckoning all the worse. China needs to take some more serious steps towards instituting good civil governance.
Don't believe that China has a serious problem with their ability to govern? Consider this fact. Official figures admit 74,000 individual incidents of unrest in 2004.*
*Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/n
Re:Appeal to international treaties. (Score:2, Interesting)
But Yahoo is based in a country that does not particularly respect international treaties on human rights; for example, you're doubtless well aware that the USA is one of only two states that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
According to the Bush administration, the reason for this is that "the human rights-based approach
There is dissent among the leadship (Score:5, Interesting)
This idea that the Chinese government is entirely pro-censorship is a bit untrue. There are those within China---even some who are high up the political food chain---who see this as a bad idea.
I wonder how it'll all turn out?
Worker's Paradise (Score:2, Interesting)
Fascism is the merger of business and government power, by putting a government face on the corporate body. Communism is the same merger, by ownership of property and operation of business by government. Both are run on propaganda and censorship, usually promoted as education.
Re:You're twisting their position (Score:1, Interesting)
No, we in the West parade around with our freedom of speech and wear it on our sleeves, but yet anything that is critical of our government ends up getting slammed by politicians' paid speech in the mainstream media as being a bunch of nuts, manipulated by laws in the name of national security, manipulated by policies that limit access to the government to those who support its views, and in general, twisted to the point that the free press is anything but free. I mean, sure you can argue that at least sometimes the message gets out, but if it isn't truly accessible to the people---if the signal is buried so thoroughly in the noise---is it really heard?
We will not have true freedom of speech until everyone's voice is equal. This means the end of TV ads and paid placement for politicians, the homogenization of news media and blogging, and in general, access to the internet being brought down in price to such a point that the average citizen can make their voices heard every bit as loudly as anyone else regardless of their financial standing.
China is right. We may not have an oppressive government that cracks down on their people, but the way things are going, we're getting closer with every passing day. Instead of criticizing the Chinese government for dodging the issue, we should be criticizing our own government for repeatedly dodging the same issue---taking the Western governments to task for decades of free press violations. Don't you think it's time?
In other words... (Score:4, Interesting)
A better comparison would be France and Germany blocking certain Nazi related information. It is a better comparison because the "West" (as a whole) condemns it as well.
I don't understand the fuss (Score:2, Interesting)
The technology is such that there will be thousands, if not millions, of workarounds to penetrate any barriers to access. Just look at the history so far of electronic transmission.
I don't think anyone here is giving credit to the intelligence of people. They are parroting the standard line that evil is all powerful and cannot be overcome.
Get real! The nerds will create gaping holes in the barriers, and as the government moves to plug them up, the nerds will create more. The game will continue indefinitely.
But my money is on the hackers to always be one step ahead. The information will flow regardless of government controls.
Re:Well played, China. Well played. (Score:5, Interesting)
If put on my website a description of any of the devices used for train derailment by the Russian partisans or the French resistance my hosting company will get smacked by a takedown notice right away. And it will comply.
Same for a description of any of the biological weapons delivery systems pioneered by the Japanese in WWII (as they can be made in a basement), same for the methods used by Germans to distribute cholera in the civilian population on the Eastern front in 1917, so on so fourth.
It is scary when history becomes illegal.
Re:Well played, China. Well played. (Score:1, Interesting)
Absolute freedom absolutely corrupts? I only offer my observations through an American's eye while living in China. Not mine, but my brother and his family of six living in Shanghai. Among many things...
1. Here in America, a simple mistype of many URL(s) will redirect [contentwatch.com] you to a porn site. It's happened to me many a time. Children play all sorts of shockwave games at any given time here at the house. Filtering software is laughable and 24x7 monitoring is irrational. I by no means wish to trample upon your rights of free expression, but at what cost does your freedom impede on mine and others to enjoy it? Why can there not be some sort of rationale compromise here? Unfortunately, China takes the polar extreme here, but I tend to agree with my brother who enjoys that small compromise there, and is one less burden for him in a world of child predators.
2. When tsunami waves were hitting the beaches off China, the government there evacuated several million people in several cities to safety; compulsory compliance and zero casualties. Yet here in America, those without the financial means for transportation were left behind to face the wrath of Katrina in Louisianna. Why? I've heard all the excuses, both local and federal. And they're just excuses.
3. I frequently talk to my brother on MSN messenger webcam and by phone. We joke about perceived crackling noises in the background. I have no qualms about Chinese officials listening in. I question the rationale and wisdom behind those who lose sleep over wire taps here in America over limited National security taps related to terrorism.He lives (to some extent) by a separate set of rules than the average Chinese citizen. Granted. But for just these three examples, can not reasonable men agree upon reasonable compromises here? Must absolute freedom be preserved in all these cases? In my opinion, no. I believe a government should balance the right of freedom with the impact of destruction. Can not one pornographer manipulating a URL hurt hundreds of innocent children? Can not one natural disaster kill thousands? Can not one terrorist establish contact here in America and devastate millions? I only ask for wisdom in such matters, not ideology. I by no means call for such action as China mandates there. However, when separate .xxx domains languish in litigation limbo here in the States, old people and minorities float like driftwood down the Mississippi, and our Commander in Chief is called criminal by some, I'm left with only those polar extremes as an option. Why is reason in democracy always under the dominion and supremacy of freedom? I don't believe it was ever intended as such. I offer this observation: I believe it's far easier to secure one's freedom under a totalitarian regime transitioning to inherit freedoms, than for a limitless one restricting abuses of it. Also consider how many free Western nations are entrenched on foreign soil to secure those freedoms, versus totalitarian ones entrenched on their own. And which do you believe is still more secure?
Mr. Compromise
1776 - c. 1980
R.I.P.
Re:Well played, China. Well played. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now corrupt government officials who don't do their job are no stranger in the PRC. several million evacuated and zero casualties? I call BS. This is the same government system that tried to cover up SARS, probably has been covering up bird flu, and most certainly covers up day-in day-out disasters over a number of things from environmental spills to mining disasters.
The PRC is not a normal country. It's not just a little behind the curve. It's a country coming out of a truly evil system and it's not quite sure whether it wants to quit that evil or not.
for the teenagers and children... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Mr. Liu said the major thrust of the Chinese effort to regulate content on the Web was aimed at preventing the spread of pornography or other content harmful to teenagers and children.
fine, sites like this: http://et.21cn.com/portray/ [21cn.com] , this: http://tu.tom.com/list/beauty.html [tom.com] , this: http://www.qihoo.com/site/tietu/index.html [qihoo.com] ... are totally accessible China sites for Chinese teenagers and children of any age... (yep, they're NOT pornography and harmful content, maybe I'm just too sensitive...)
dear poor blocked http://www.freebsd.org/ [freebsd.org] you're more harmful to teenagers and children in China...