New Chinese Rule Requires Real Names Online 193
crimeandpunishment writes "According to a human rights group, a leading Chinese Internet regulator is calling for new rules requiring people to use their real names online and when buying mobile phones. New York-based 'Human Rights in China' says it has obtained the complete text of a speech Wang Chen, director of the State Council Information Office, made in April, and they quote him as saying 'We will make the Internet real name system a reality as soon as possible.'"
On par with USA... (Score:1, Insightful)
You can't buy a cell phone in the USA without either giving your identity, or giving the police permission to tap the line to wait for you to ID yourself.
Post-paid plans already require a credit check that takes your SSN and associates it with the account. If the account changes hands, a new credit check is done on the new identity... no way to hide who you are in this environment.
You could argue that a pre-paid plan can be paid for with untraceable cash... but if large amounts of prepaid phone minutes are bought with cash and they can't figure out why, the price for the service will go up. Top up with just one identifiable payment and it's tied to the phone forever.
The anonymous phone call has gone the way of the pay phone... gone!
It's being done in the US too (Score:5, Insightful)
new rules requiring people to use their real names -- when buying mobile phones
Just like Chinese, this is required by Apple too. They say it's so that you cannot buy multiple phones, but you still are required to give them your real name when you want to buy a phone. You are only allowed to buy a device with a credit card and they will record your name and phone IMEI.
The trend in the US seems to be going strongly towards using real names too. Theres Facebook and there just was that Blizzard Forum incident. So it's not really nothing new, but it is just an another "china and communism is bad"-story when pretty much the same is done in the US.
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:5, Insightful)
but it is just an another "china and communism is bad"-story when pretty much the same is done in the US.
Regardless, two wrongs still don't make a right.
Re:On par with USA... (Score:2, Insightful)
No it's not. Pre-paid cellphones are incredibly easy to get... Also pay phone still exist.
Re:Does this really do a lot of good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any guess on how many people share the name "Wang Chen" in all of China? Chances are most people could use their real name and still remain relatively anonymous.
Certain pieces of information are key nodes that link other clusters of information. You're right in so far as a name itself may not be unique and if given nothing but that piece of information, it'd be hard to single out and individual. But real names are very rarely isolated like that. There is usually a entire clusters of information around a name. And this rule would simply ensure that those clusters stay attached to any given individual (or at least - harder to isolate).
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not the same thing as what's being done in the US.
You might have to use your name to buy a cell phone here, but you don't have to use your name online. Individual websites requiring the use of real names is a totally different thing then the gov't requiring it. Imagine how people would react if the U.S. gov't said everyone must use their real names online!
As well, using my real name is not dangerous here, whereas in China you have a reason to not use your real name. I think it is pretty obvious that the government is proposing this to better control people and what they write online.
I think it would be a great thing if the citizens of China could enjoy freedom of expression and freedom from censorship online. Unfortunately, this appears quite unlikely.
Re:Does this really do a lot of good? (Score:1, Insightful)
You do realize how many Chinese characters and variations there are right?
Just because English phonetic translations look the same, doesn't mean the names are actually the same.
What you see as Wang or Chen may actually be multiple different Chinese characters.
Example: Use Google PinYin IME and type "Chen" and see how many different characters pop up.
Re:Does this really do a lot of good? (Score:1, Insightful)
Chinese names are rarely that long. Normally 3 characters (incl Family Name), sometimes 2. Maybe 4-5, but that's really rare.
Names in normal usage are basically the same as in the West. Kind of like Hello Mr. Chen, or Hello Wang.
The casual usage you talk of is more like nicknames, like Dick for Richard.
But ya, I don't see what the point of the OP is. English names for identification works out just fine even with all the overlapping names. 10 people having the name John Doe doesn't make it that much more difficult for identification in usage. There are always other things to include to make the name more meaningful.
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:5, Insightful)
"but it is just an another "china and communism is bad"-story when pretty much the same is done in the US."
But its not being implemented at the behest of the US Government. Apparently, its not in China either, yet, but; the comments by this Wang Chen of the State Council Information Office would appear to indicate that it will be, very soon. I do not have to (and I do not) use Apple products or Facebook, and I have access to all the digital services I need. The policies of those services are not governmental policies. Big difference that you seem to be ignoring.
Bit late now (Score:4, Insightful)
While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.- Lenin (1870 - 1924)
Re:Does this really do a lot of good? (Score:3, Insightful)
heya,
Actually, the largest religion isn't Buddhism (or Taoism), per se, because they aren't really practiced as a "religion", as such.
Most Chinese just have a mix of weird cultural superstitious, that get passed on in the family. They believe in a heaven (celestial court), and various Gods/deities/ghosts etc, but usually in a very general sense. This is something of a stereotype, but often they'll just pray in the hopes that their kids will get good marks at school, or they'll earn good money etc. They don't really mind/care much about the history behind it, or the reasons for it.
Even the way they practice Buddhism is more like just a collection of superstitions, or "thought systems"/"cultural practicses" (as the Wikipedia article refers to it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China [wikipedia.org])
Very few Chinese people/family friends I know actually know much about the religion itself. Ironically, I'm Anglican, and I sometimes seem to know more about their faiths (from an academic point of view) than many of the practitioners do. Often, I've pointed out the reasons they're doing something, or they history behind something, and they'll be like...oh....we've just always done it because our parents did.
And officially, the Communists/CCP hate religion anyway, although this has relaxed somewhat.
Cheers,
Victor
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember that whopper. It's got to be up there with the most transparent lies ever told by a major corporation.
"You can't buy an iPhone with cash because we're worried that we'll sell too many of them".
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:2, Insightful)
The real wrong is our failure to resist these encroachments. It might not be expected of the Chinese, but the Americans... WTF! It's been almost 40 years since people have made any real attempt to alter government/corporate policy. Now they only complain if their favorite TV show is canceled.
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:On par with USA... (Score:3, Insightful)
Asking Slashdot for information on wiretaps is like asking Rush Limbaugh for information on Obama's policies, or asking Al Gore for information on climate science. The results may be amusing, but I hope you don't expect them to bear any resemblance to reality.
Re:It's being done in the US too (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed!
The headline claims: "New Chinese Rule Requires Real Names Online"
The first line of the summary says: "...a leading Chinese Internet regulator is calling for new rules requiring people to use their real names online".
So which is it? - Required, or someone thinks it should be required?
I know China censor their net but I'm sick and tired of this sort of journalistic hyperbole. It happens with everything, read any story on the Aussie internet and it sounds like I'm living in NK, except in reality none of what Conroy is "calling for" has been implemented and it will probably stay that way.
Vigillance is a GoodThingTM but the bullshit tsumami that occurs every time some random official opens their mouth is fucking childish.
Re:Why do you need to be anonymous at all? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are those of us that think that while children don't necessarily understand logical arguments or "sanctions", they are hardwired (like every other animal) to understand pain.
I define spanking as causing mild temporary pain without tissue damage. Anything that causes visible damage is "beating" them and not "spanking" them.
It should also be used extremely sparingly and only when other punishments have failed to control their behaviour - that way the other punishments are reinforced and become effective on their own without the need to deploy spanking, because they know what comes next.
In short, spanking is a useful means of defining an absolute frame of reference for other punishment. I've spanked my daughter precisely once in her life, only after the usual punishment (the "naughty corner") was not effective, and explained why. Since then, standard punishments have always been adequate. If I'd left it, what then? She would have learned that the "naughty corner" was an ineffective sanction with no teeth and started to behave just as she chose.
I'm aware that some people take it too far. I would go so far as to suggest that these people aren't even considering the morals of the act. Many of them are just being violent with them because they find the immature behaviour of children annoying.
Banning or stigmatizing the act does nothing but remove a useful disciplinary tool from responsible parents, or make them feel guilty about disciplining their kids. The parents who are beating their kids outside of a disciplinary framework didn't care whether it was moral or not anyway.