China Slams Clinton's Call For Internet Freedom 235
CWmike writes "China on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-China relations. Clinton's speech and China's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in China by ending censorship of its Chinese search engine. Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said might force it to close its offices in China altogether. On Thursday in Washington, DC, Clinton unveiled US initiatives to help people living under repressive governments access the Internet for purposes such as reporting corruption. The US will support circumvention tools for dissidents whose Internet connections are blocked, she said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu called for the US 'to respect the facts and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China.' China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said, apparently referring to the issues raised by Google."
Color me skeptical (Score:4, Informative)
Maybe, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. [wsj.com]
Re:Color me skeptical (Score:4, Interesting)
"and stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China".
I think that say enough about China : calling freedom "so-called" , and claiming that there is such a thing as "unreasonable criticism" .
As far as i know, criticism is always grounded in reason , otherwise , it would be slander.
Anyway , i'm glad Google is finally starting to take a position on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd agree with one of the things China says here...
When I read the quote,
stop using the issue of so-called Internet freedom to unreasonably criticize China.' China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy, the statement said
I translate as, "Stop talking about censorship; this is really about hacking, and that's illegal here."
Up until the "...and that's illegal here" bit, I think they have a point.
China hacked Google computers; they're apparently involved in widespread government-sanctioned industrial espionage --- and somehow the dialogue has shifted to be about censorship? They're different issues.
If anything, I think that the hacking incident
Hacking and censorship are one and the same (Score:4, Insightful)
From my perspective, hacking and censorship are one and the same issue here.
Those who want to express opinions that the ruling party doesn't want people to hear are the targets of hacking. In this case, hacking is just the means of censorship.
Get rid of the mindset that censorship is OK and you get rid of the motivation behind the hacking.
Google has BACKED DOWN in China (Score:5, Informative)
I have attempted to post the reports that Google has backed down in China and re-enabled Chinese search result filtering in Google.cn despite of the lack of real actions from the Chinese government [slashdot.org] in the few two days, but /. editors keep refusing to put this relevant in the front page. This story casts a doubt on Google's stance, motive and commitment. Right, how can we be critical of our new found American hero defending the precious "freedom" and fighting the "evil" China? How can a hero backing down to the evil? Hero can't make fundamental principle error, or you are not allowed to know when it does. How could the evil have not taken any real evil action on this particular matter? It would hurt our national morale, and so we should do self-censoring and forbidding to put it in the front page of any Western media outlet.
(Even your WSJ story does not mention that google has re-enabled filtering; while every Western media reported the (now temporary) suspension after Google announcement. It is oversea Chinese media that reported it and I picked up and verified with the exact same Chinese query [google.cn] I tried right after their temporary suspension back then.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sitting here in California, USA w/o using any proxy. You can try the above link. If you don't read Chinese, try google of that link: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.cn%2Fsearch%3Fhl%3Dzh-CN%26source%3Dhp%26q%3D%25E5%2585%25AD%25E5%259B%259B&sl=zh-CN&tl=en [google.com] Try that in the States. You should see the results ahve little to do with the June 4 event and the translated text "According to local laws, reg
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First when you're a guest you have to play by the house rules.
What does that have to do with China hacking servers in another country?
Google and business (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally! Youtube in China! (Score:5, Funny)
Kudos for giving countries like this access to freedom of information.
It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.
4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside, I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what's force-fed down their throats and see what they're missing out on.
Re:Finally! Youtube in China! (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like being only allowed to watch State-sponsored TV and government approved books in libraries, and then suddenly being allowed to experience the wealth of the world.
Yeah ... it's not just like that. It's exactly that :)
4chan and the dark underbelly of the internet aside, I hope this gives people a taste of culture/information other than what's force-fed down their throats and see what they're missing out on.
The Internet is about way more than culture. It provides individual access to the sum wealth of human information. Good, bad, underbelly, culture ... those are all subjective. That's the beauty of it. By providing the individual with the opportunity to access any information, but not requiring them to access any specific information, the Internet provides an individual with unprecedented potential. They can do exactly what they want with that potential, be it 4chan, China-like censorship, or full-fledged involvement in mainstream cultures.
Maybe many of the people in China love their country's protective hand. We'll never know until they can choose whether or not to have it.
Re:Finally! Youtube in China! (Score:5, Insightful)
China has a long history of living under a protective hand, thousands of years. The US has a history built in freedoms in the last hundred so years and a resulting society devolving into anarchy and hedonism. Who's to say who's right?
I daresay anyone who was shot, their organs auctioned off, and their families billed for the bullet might have an opinion or two. Its important to differentiate between the beautiful and unique Chinese culture which stretches back thousands of years, and the organlegging jackbooted slavers currently in charge of the country.
Re:Finally! Youtube in China! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't know why this is marked troll, its based on facts...
Organ harvesting in China [wikipedia.org]
Organ harvesting in the People's Republic of China refers to the practice of removing human organs and tissue from the corpses of criminals executed in China and using these organs for organ transplants.
Families billed for bullets in China [timesonline.co.uk]
In the past, capital punishment was carried out by a single shot to the back of the head at execution fields outside Chinese cities and families of the dead were sent a bill for the bullet.
Slavery in China [spiegel.de]
It's a story that has made headlines around the world: Slave laborers have been found in Chinese brick factories. The authorities have freed many of them, but some fear there could be hundreds more being imprisoned, beaten and starved. Some parents have begun searching for their sons on their own.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's to say who's right and who is wrong?
Well, if you follow the basic laws of ethics, I'd say every party involved is wrong. A violation of human rights is always wrong. I criticize China and I criticize the U.S. and the U.K. and every other country I see a problem with.
If what China does is wrong, and the West does it too, then the West is also wrong. Not that most people ever like to admit "their" side isn't in the right.
When we take away the rights of terrorists here, we're wrong, too. Our founding pri
Re:Finally! Youtube in China! (Score:4, Interesting)
At some point, revolution from within becomes impossible regardless of the numerical advantage. Even the US had foreign allies, and more importantly, an armed citizenship existing before the beginning of the revolution.
Hillary Clinton's quotable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom -- it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit," she said.
"It's about whether we live on a planet with one Internet, one global community and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."
Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really lovely and Charles Stross-ian, brings a tear to my eye :)
Kind of makes you wonder who wrote those words, eh? Or is Hilary the only politician without writers?
Operation freedom (Score:2)
Those people really lack diplomacy, freedom is not seem the same way everywhere in the world which makes the use of that word to have different meanings.
I don't see the US supporting the freedom in the internet to selling illegal drugs, sending spam, prostitution, DMCA, ...
Likewise is totally acceptable that other countries impose restrictions to Internet use where there is concern to that community, like to pornography until issues of age checking and privacy are addressed.
Surely China's censorship is outr
Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote (Score:5, Insightful)
a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."
Yeah, it's touching... it's also empty bullshit. When ACTA [techdirt.com] comes into effect, Hilary will be pushing hard to enforce the whims of her censors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wanting to see something, and actually censoring them are two very different things.
I really do not want a political party in norway that worships norse gods and hate jews and black people... ;)
but I dont think they should be banned from speaking either.. Freedom of speech.. even for douchebags
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well, that's what Freedom of Speech is all about, isn't it?
No one needs to protect popular opinions. Once you decide "douchebags can't have free speech!" then who gets to decide who's a douchebag?
Well, I suppose we could use a sort of metric like, "percent of income spent on Axe body spray," but that'd have some kinks to work out.
Re:Hillary Clinton's quotable quote (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't like that speech. Sounds a bit "Ein Reich, Ein Volk" to me. How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.
Really ? To me , it's more like the opposite : she is talking about one global community , were everyone has the same access to information ,regardless of race , culture , language , etc ...
It's a bit utopian , but on the internet , it is possible : one of great things of the internet , is that if you desire it , you can hide your identity . ...
If no one knows who you are , they cannot judge you on your race , color , sex , etc
They can only judge you on your words and actions on the internet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How would Hillary feel about web pages that oppose her "global community" or don't particularly want to be "united"? Based on her political record, I don't think she'd want to see such things.
Let me first state that I'm a pretty conservative person, and wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton for dogcatcher. (I also wouldn't vote for Al Gore, who's going to show up later in my argument.
Hillary Clinton played a role in shaping the domestic agenda of the (Bill) Clinton administration. The Internet became big and important to the common man during that administration. The Clintons had a chance to nip free speech on the Internet in the bud during that time, and they could have gotten away with it before
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sick and Tired of Hacking (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution in action! (Score:2)
Oh come now. Think of it as natural selection, weeding out the less competent network security policies and practitioners. Those that remain will be stronger, faster, and smell better between showers.
If Google can fend off the People's Army, then your Gmail account is probably pretty proof against plain old identity thief hackers from Chicago. So this is good news!
Re:Sick and Tired of Hacking (Score:4, Funny)
Originating from China... so that narrows it down to what, one sixth of the worlds population? Can you see any problem with your argument?
Re: (Score:2)
Most of that one-sixth of the worlds population cannot read the only language I can read/write in. I think it's less of a deal than you might think.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that shifts it away from the one sixth figure... but as much of the rest of the world can't either, that shifts it back.
Attacks I deal with tend to come out of the middle east, but to be fair, there's a high chance it's coming from someone with a compromised machine just proxying the attack, so I try not to hold it against the country of origin. I've been at the other end of that once, net cut off 'n stuff, tho my machine wasn't compromised, they just hadn't thought about the fact that having an IP add
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers, I was interested in the figures but not quite enough to have searched yet :-)
If you notice though, the total world population % with access to the internet is 1.3% lower than China's reported figure, so the figures pretty much balance out, whether looking at online figures or total population figures, it's about a sixth either way. Haha I was kinda banking on the the figures for the rest of the world balancing it out, as I did see that counter argument coming, I couldn't've hoped for them being only
Re: (Score:2)
Minä puhun suomea ja asun Shanghaissa (Score:2)
With something like 1.35 billion people you can bet someone there speaks your language.
Not answering the real issues (Score:3, Insightful)
Talk about a non-responsive response: "Our rules don't allow for hacking and violations of citizen's privacy".
Considering the state of privacy there, they certainly aren't lying.
So when... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Google said the attacks "originated from within China". They said there were "sophisticated attacks" against human rights activists, which involved accessing their accounts by use of the "correct username and password". I have yet to find where they have said there is any evidence to believe it was the Chinese government "as a nation" who carried this out, despite what news outlets have said (like they'd ever blow something out of proportion or report something uncertain as being certain). Originating in Ch
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not the only one. I offer the following points :
1. The servers hacked where those whose purpose was to supply email headers to the US government. Why shouldn't the Chinese gov get them too?
2. Google hacked into the computer from which they claim the attacked originated. Why is *that* ok?
3. Most spam is sent *via* hacked Chinese servers and if Google managed to hack into it, why couldn't anyone (including the Chinese dissidents themselves)?
I'd be much more likely to listen to Google and their thre
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Google is in second place doesn't mean they're doing poorly - 29% of a market of 300+ million online users is
pretty darn good. If you think that's "irrelevant", have a look at the market share of the 8 or so other search engines that
operate in China.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's irrelevant to Chinese people, no matter what the %. If Google disappears, they'll just use one of the other ones. I really don't think many people there actually *like* to use Google in the way that people in the US seem to.
It's relevant to Google, of course; and I suppose the figure itself might seem to suggest some success, but I don't think that's the whole story either...it's just search. I wonder what the figures are for Google's other services and the impact for their real income - they'r
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying I agree with your conclusion, as I don't believe there's evidence either to suggest that... there's enough motive to go round an awful long way, it's just as wrong to suggest it was any one of them without presenting reason to believe one motivated party were responsible over another motivated party... BUT... did ya notice how Google's (well, I read the original blog, not sure how much that's a corporate vs personal statement, but I'm guessing it was pretty google) statement, they had to kind
Re: (Score:2)
> how come people don't do that?!! It's not hard!!
Well, there's one obvious answer to that...ie is hard because there is no other information...though I think I gave you some that seemed to be missing from your original post, though I guess you knew it already.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. 30% market share in the incredibly anti-foreign-business Chinese market is not just a success, it's an incredible success. China typically favors local companies both above and below the board. Any foreign business trying to break into China would kill for that market share in their relevant market. Yahoo or Bing would kill for that share. The idea they would just leave because they weren't the leader is not simply hard to believe, it is completely ir
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't going to say that outright as long as they have employees in China. You're supposed to connect the dots.
Verisign, on the other hand, apparent
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese better be careful what they say (Score:4, Funny)
or we might use our tectonic weapon [digitaljournal.com] on them :O
A view from inside China (Score:5, Interesting)
I am actually currently in China. Sites which are carte-blance blocked include: Facebook, youtube, wikipedia, blogger.com (as a side note: Wikipedia really is useful--reminded of that now that it is not available).
The reason for blocking Facebook and company is because they are starting to work for serious political change: see today's 'No Prorouge' rallies occurring today in Canada [and at worldwide Canadian embassies] after the Canadian prime minister leader cancelled the democratically-elected parliament for weeks--these rallies are a result of over 200,000 strong grassroots Facebook group support. Concurrent to that is an evaporation of that prime ministers lead in the polls versus the opposition party.
If only they blocked twitter (Score:2, Funny)
Then I would have found my new home :P
Re: (Score:2)
It IS blocked in China.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor use of the term carte blanche which means full power, open sanction, free hand etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a great use of it, but I wouldn't beat him up over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, the censorship aspect of Youtube and Facebook etc is a ruse.
You're kidding, right? You offer no evidence; please provide some.
It's no coincidence that Facebook was blocked right around when it started gain traction outside of the US, including China, and several local sites here also began to pick up traction.
Just to be explicit here, the above is no evidence for your position whatsoever. Before it gained any popularity in China, it was useless for the distribution of political speech to the masses, because of the limited user base.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
GP was a foreigner living in China, as am I. Doesn't the native-level English tip you off? And it's not exactly a secret in China that foreign websites are blocked in order to stimulate the development of local ones. For every big major Western website type (youtube/facebook/twitter/etc) there is a corresponding Chinese ripoff site. I mean, look at renren.com and tell me it's not facebook exactly.
And never assume that just because something is blocked or banned that Chinese people are too stupid to kn
Reporting Corruption ... (Score:2)
Quote [reuters.com]: "Corruption costs Afghans $2.5 billion a year, a United Nations agency said on Tuesday, with the scale of bribery matching Afghanistan's opium trade."
Probably my poor logic, since Afghans do not suffer from a repressive government.
CC.
Clinton backs Google to the hilt (Score:4, Insightful)
This is very strong language. Google is getting full backing and all other US companies are being actively encouraged to follow their lead.
Re: (Score:2)
It is strong, considering that "censorship" does include US censorship. The Chinese are far worse about this, but given that child pornography, atom bomb plans, and cryptography have all been limited by the US government, we can't claim complete innocence. And US companies have accepted cryptography censorship as a part of selling software internationally for decades.
I'm glad at Clinton's stand, but the devil is in the details. We'll see if this helps reduce censorship in the USA as well as in China and oth
I'm Not a Betting Man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everyone keep saying investors will be angry as a fact when as this has been happening Google's stock price hasn't budged. In fact, the only thing that's made it move lately is the signal that the founders (the guys you seem to think will be bludgeoned) are going to be selling stock to bring their stake to less than 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
A company that willingly turns its back on a market of 1 billion people risks having its CEO bludgeoned to death by angry investors.
Google isn't like other companies, the majority of shares are still held by the founders, at least one of whom, Brin, has had personal experience with repressive regimes growing up. They can do whatever they like.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is this false idea of 1 billion customers. Just because China has 1 billion people doesn't really mean anything. The reason is that a small percentage of them are in a position where they even could be customers.
There are two Chinas more or less. The China you hear about in the news is the city China. Their cities, mostly along the eastern seaboard, are quite modern. This is where all the industry is and where people are seeing massive improvements in their quality of life. The rest of China? We
Re: (Score:2)
That could get very interesting.
Google is a very good search engine. In order to carve out a market position Bing does two things:
(1) makes itself hard to avoid by cutting deals with third parties.
(2) adds some features of marginal value.
Getting in bed with the Chinese authorities after Google has just gotten out might change consumer perceptions of these things.
Most people don't care to choose things, as long as they work. They don't have any strong feelings about Microsoft, but almost nobody likes the C
Meanwhile, back in the U.S. of A..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The MafiAAs receive carte blanche from the courts to abuse their customers, Net Neutrality simmers on the legislative back burner, allowing vertically integrating ISP's to throttle traffic in cavalier and arbitrary ways, as well as allowing them to merge with content providing companies to "better serve" their customers.
But we don't have censorship, nope. But we don't give American internet users that tube of KY which'd help it all go down so much easier.
US is banning internet poker (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait, is that the same US that banned the internet poker? Now it wants something called "freedom"?
Says one thing does the other?
Re: (Score:2)
Acceptable complaints about free speech in America (on the internet anyway) include:
Child Pornography (unpopular)
Beastiality (unpopular)
Piracy (see above, not actually censorship)
China or Australia? (Score:2)
"Australia on Friday slammed remarks made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promoting Internet freedom worldwide, saying her words harmed US-Australia relations. Clinton's speech and Australia's response both come after Google last week said it planned to reverse its long-standing position in Australia by ending censorship of its Australian search engine. Google cited increasingly tough censorship and recent cyberattacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists for its decision, which it said mig
What about American firms, Mrs. Clinton? (Score:5, Interesting)
Evidence continues to surface about American and other Western firms cooperating with repressive governments in their efforts to censor and eavesdrop on their citizens. Why didn't Mrs. Clinton mention them in her speech?
We have, for instance, Cisco [harvard.edu], Nokia/Siemens [wsj.com], Microsoft [bbc.co.uk], and Yahoo [bbc.co.uk], just to name a few.
Hah! (Score:2, Insightful)
China DDoS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They have several nodes going over the border, but they are all under common governmental control and hooked up to identical centrally-managed censorship equipment. A mixture of DNS filtering, IP filtering, and stateless TCP resetting filters.
Time for some diplomatic pressure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you really think Bill Clinton has any trouble getting Cuban cigars (likely absolutely legally), you're incredibly naive. The people in power always have loopholes for themselves. Anyway, the special thing about Clinton's cigars isn't where they were made, it's what he does with them.
Freedom “vital” except music downloadi (Score:5, Interesting)
Remarks by US Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton on the occasion of the massive hacker attack on US companies by an unspecified national entity. Translated [newstechnica.com] for your convenience.
On Monday, a seven-year-old girl in Port-au-Prince was pulled from the rubble after they sent a text message calling for help. The spread of information networks is forming a new nervous system for our planet. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.
Amid this unprecedented surge in connectivity, we must also recognize that these technologies are not an unmitigated blessing. These tools are also being exploited to undermine human progress and political rights. Just as steel can be used to build hospitals or machine guns, or nuclear power can energize a city or destroy it, the same networks that help organize movements for freedom also enable al-Qaida to ruthlessly copy American songs and movies in “M-P-Three” format.
Freedom of expression is no longer defined solely by whether citizens can go into the town square and criticize their government without fear of retribution. No — they must be able to give their full name and credit card number and put them on the Internet as well. A connection to global information networks is like an on-ramp to modernity — one cell phone in a remote community can enable people previously unavailable access to Monsanto seeds.
On their own, new technologies do not take sides in the struggle for freedom and progress — but the United States does. We stand for a single internet where all of humanity has equal access to knowledge and ideas, paid for at 99 cents — I’m sorry, $1.29 — a song. And we recognize that the world’s information infrastructure will become what we and others make of it.
Now, all societies recognize that free expression has its limits. We do not tolerate those who incite others to violence or copyright violation, such as the agents of al-Qaida who are, at this moment, downloading songs at a furious rate, and setting their sights on cracking the patriotic protection of Blu-Ray discs. Those who use the internet to recruit terrorists or distribute stolen intellectual property cannot divorce their online actions from their real world identities.
States, terrorists, downloaders and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks. Those who disrupt the free flow of paid information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, our civil society and our economy.
Increasingly, U.S. companies are making the issue of internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions. The most recent situation involving Google has attracted a great deal of interest. And we look to the Chinese authorities to conduct a thorough review of the cyber intrusions that led Google to make its announcement. And we also look for that investigation and its results to be China signing the ACTA treaty like our campaign donors want them to.
The internet has already been a source of tremendous progress in China, and it is fabulous. There are so many people in China now online. But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of Internet users to be protected from being able to download any song ever released, any time, anywhere, risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century.
So let me close by asking you to remember the little girl who was pulled from the rubble on Monday in Port-au-Prince. She’s alive, she was reunited with her family, she will have the chance to grow up and pay the going rate for a licence not a sale see end user license agreement of a song in a given format on a given device. We cannot stand by while people are separated from the iTunes store by walls of censorship.
China's laws (Score:2, Insightful)
''China's laws forbid hacking attacks and violations of citizens' privacy"
China's constitution also says all sorts of interesting things, such as freedom of religious worship, freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, association, etc. (Look up the "four bigs" and Article 35). The ability to exercise those rights is rather limited. Really, the whole thing reads like some kind of bad joke.
Let's just say that the implementation and enforcement of China's laws leaves much to be desired, and when the law
yea (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not stealing your jobs, your psychopathic companies are giving the jobs away. There is a difference.
"Intellectual property", apart from being a neologism for when laws intended to promote culture and science are abused to protect big business, is just a State-granted monopoly, and the U.S. did not respect foreign IP rights in the beginning either.
When Americans start to pay the "premium" for manufacturing at home instead of choosing the cheap, toxic, Chinese alternative, you will have a point.
QUIT PLAYING AROUND (Score:3, Informative)
That was hardly "slamming" (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to Cold War 2.0 (Score:2)
If it's a battle of proxies, rather than a battle of proxy wars, it might not be so bad.
How disingenuous is this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Many US politicians, corporations and intelligence agecnies loooove to talk about how China should allow internet freedom, while at the same time they're looking for ways to curtail our freedom online over here. Their whole wet dream is for the US internet to be like China's.
6 Feet Under... (Score:2)
6 feet underground, Henry Kissinger is tapping morse code on the casket lid, "Let me out, that fatass cow is going to get you all killed yet".
Sounds like the Chinese Gov't is feeling insecure (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But since its america, no one complains because "god bless america". If china had this kind of propaganda there wouldnt be as big of a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty sad how the first thing that came to mind was "Country's educated despised and not trusted by majority, uneducated. But first in a new study, scientists have discovered water is wet..."
I guess humanity, as a whole, just doesn't trust people more educated than they are.
Re:Internet Censorship operates in the U.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is an amazing bit of conspiriakii.
There is not references other that some buzz words gleanable from US procurement contracts. No phone numbers, no names, no websites and yet you manage to get a +2 insightful.
I am impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
/. has one of the best censorship systems in existence. Troll mods will rescue us all!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hell, the Great Firewall even blocked the "Down for everyone or just me"; last night Amazon's images have all disappeared.
And recently some imbeciles have configured the firewall block CDNs... The results are, bizarre.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So what "stuff" did you find and what websites were you looking at that were mysteriously blocked?
You must be a very important person!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
it took some phone calls to stop the censorship.
You're either amazingly important, simply summarising a very long painful process up in a few words for the sake of keeping an internet post shortish or you're basically lying...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's keep a sense of scale. Guantanamo Bay, and a lot going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, is awful and the information tightly controlled. But given that China willingly and effectively censors political speech and porn, but is unwilling or unable to do anything about the 99% spam email coming from their domains, is an indication that they can't be bothered with censoring criminal behavior. They only censor political or politically embarrassing behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for tetra modem
Random checks on first few pages show no issues.
Troll
Re: (Score:2)
The USA isn't the world police, even if they think they are. But you can't criticize them for taking steps to reduce the power of potential future opposition. China is responsible for a TON of industrial and scientific espionage. Companies are fully aware that their brand spanking new designs are being ripped off and sold for pennies on the dollar of their original price under different brand names, yet it's so much cheaper to send products to China to be produced that this doesn't deter them.
But it's no
Re: (Score:2)
Comin again to save the motherfuckin day yeah!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the west we never heard about the US Black Fleet that was about to conquer Taiwan and got blown out of the water by the Chinese. That happened in 2003 and never hit the news nor the Internet
Wait, the US was about to invade the Republic of China, but then the People's Republic of China defended them? The same People's Republic of China that doesn't regard the Republic of China as a legitimate state? This is about as likely as the USA intervening to protect North Korea from invasion by China, so there's a good reason why it wasn't in the news.
But over here the embarrassment for the USA would be devastating. Loosing a whole fleet to China, them walking away without a scratch, as if they had performed a show.
A US battleship has a typical crew complement of around 2,000. A fleet will be at least ten ships, so that's 20,000 members of the navy. And yet, none
Re: (Score:2)
ped through under the radar, so fuck china i hope they all die a miserable death!
Thats harsh and absurd. Sure the Chinese GOVERNMENT is corrupt and evil, but lets face it most of them are. China's is just near the far end of the scale. Vote with your wallet (when you can-not always possible) and lobby with your voice and feet. China in the end is merely propped up by the endless shit we buy from them