Great Firewall Becomes Greater 210
Jay writes "This article on Yahoo! mentions China's new restrictions on websites as of September 1st. Apparently it's more advanced and doesn't censor the entire webpage, just portions. It also forwards requests for search engines, like google, to less effective search engines. They also mention that this might just be temporary during a Communist Party Congress. Anyone have a mirror?"
A different AP article spins things slightly differently, emphasizing that Google is apparently no longer blocked in China and mentioning the selective blocking of web content only in passing.
So? (Score:2)
The rest won't miss it.
At least its stepping up the challenge for those who are wiley!
(I think it's pretty devious that they aren't blocking google searches, just sending them to a less efficient search engine! ha!)
Re:So? (Score:1)
Re:effective, not efficient! (Score:2)
Re:effective, not efficient! (Score:2)
[winces towards the sky in anguish, followed by howling and the gnashing of teeth]
This won't last. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This won't last. (Score:5, Funny)
Yep, and it's only a matter of time before they have a nice republic set up too. This communism thing will never last.
It's not the lack of freedom that will change things, but block a man's google.com and you're begging for revolution!
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
Re:This won't last. (Score:1)
Tiananmen, April-June 1989 [christusrex.org]
Re:This won't last. (Score:1, Troll)
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
Re:This won't last. (Score:2)
chinese proxy? (Score:1)
Re:chinese proxy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:chinese proxy? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:chinese proxy? (Score:1)
Re:chinese proxy? (Score:1)
Censorship in a world of forwards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Censorship in a world of forwards (Score:1)
Re:Censorship in a world of forwards (Score:2)
Erm, while I agree with a lot of what you're saying, just because no US citizen was put in there doesn't make it more humane, indeed it makes it less fair - there are still a couple of Britons in there that the US government is point-blank refusing to give the same treatment it gave to its own citizens.
The censorship your parent has referred to is mostly self-censorship, which. while I regard it as a bit of a problem, is nothing on what happens in China.
BTW - 1989, if I remember rightly, was when the Soviet bloc collapsed, and we got a proper view of what life under the USSR was actually like. Most people who had previously contended that the regime wasn't that much worse than western democracies realised how bad it was, and therefore changed their minds when that happened.
google help me! (Score:1, Troll)
link [google.com]
and it gave me this list of links:
link 1 [discovery.com]
link 2 [about.com]
link 3 [rr.com]
man, they are good. guess i'll stay.
Re:google help me! (Score:2)
"Why would you want to view these sites? They're all crap! Where's the content?"
"Go back to your homes, read the newspapers we print for you and for Mao's Sake Don't get knocked up! We have enough people as it is. I repeat, DO NOT SCREW!"
Re:google help me! (Score:2)
I viewed the same link as you, and got these top 3 results:
antiw*r.com "leave china alone"
english.peopledaily.com.cn "foreign f***n g**g activists asked to leave"
hyperm*rt.net "yankees leave china alone"
And then some news articles about the North K*reans seeking asylum in China then moving to South K*rea.
I starred out things above so hopefully the Great Firewall of China won't block this post and you can read it.
I have a friend in China and we often ICQ each other to test the firewall and verify things he's researching, and we've ran into several surprising differences....
Re:google help me! (Score:2)
Re:google help me! (Score:2)
stupid moderators.
A good Communist... (Score:1, Flamebait)
LOL, sorry, I just had to say that.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
They might be even "more capitalist" than us. The shops and restaurants there don't hesitate to stay open all night if there are enough customers (so they can ear more money). I don't see West-European shops or restaurants do that, they close after 10 PM no matter how many customers.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
24-hour businesses are quite common in America.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
Didn't know there was one, these days. Maybe Hungary or someplace.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
Ha. 100%? Aside from mandated short work weeks and the inability to fire workers, I suppose.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
I think you're confusing economical systems with political systems. There's nothing that stops somebody from creating a capitalist totalitarian state or a socialist democracy.
And as I've pointed out earlier, China is a blend between communism and capitalism. How else do you explain all the capitalist Chinese companies and all the ads for Chinese products on street (in China) and on TV (in China)? Or that lots of people own small shops?
Re:A good Communist... (Score:1)
I love it. Every time the Commie argument comes up on Slashdot you get some bozo saying "China is bad, but they are not communist, real communism has never been tried, blah blah blah, Capitalism is evil, blah blah blah, I hate corporations, blah blah blah.
It gets old.
Tiananmen, April-June 1989 [christusrex.org]
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
This is not a joke, China really is partially capitalist. People can *own* companies, and *make profit*.
> It gets old.
So does that story from 1989.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/colum
Yup, that's a US news site.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
This is where Americans begin to sound very arrogant and ignorant indeed. As a person from a Chinese family myself, allow me to say this:
1. China is not a "communist" country any more than Hitler was a good Christian. Just because you claim to be something does not make it true. China is a corrupt political state, but that has little in the end to do with abstract economic theory. "Communism" is just a word used by the powerful to justify keeping all of the cash and power for themselves!
2. China does not "stand for" oppression and dumbing down of society. China is not a symbol, China is home to more than a billion people like you and me who are living everyday lives full of the human things: love, work, sleep, family, and so on. China's citizens and even China's dissidents do not exist to make political points for you; they are trying to live life and to make the world a better place. And let me also tell you this: they are not dumb by any stretch of the imagination. You seem to imagine a land full of little uneducated, unskilled sheep who have been fattened on a diet of propaganda. Not so!
Yes, you're trying to score one for "freedom" I understand, but you're doing it in such a disrespectful way that one wonders whether you really care about those involved, or you're simply another American jingoist trying to feel superior to everyone else.
Re:A good Communist... (Score:2)
> Capitalism assumes private ownership
Lots of Chinese *own* shops and companies. Yes, you read that right. *Own*.
1984 (Score:1)
Re:1984 (Score:1)
Re:1984 (Score:2)
There are 8 camaras on my 1 mile jorney two work, and i live in the country side.
The UK governemnt is talking about killing people for the peace of the world.
I can be free from the bondage of work, but I will probably die or be arrested if I take up the freedom.
And look at the streangth gained by Ignorant voteing.
China fits the Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength bit i suppose.
But more in the
'Religion is unpure thinking therefore we ban Religion, and save your neck by doing so.'
'Greed is the greatest temptation so well stop you from knowing whats out there because you might just become tempted.'
Oh and were all a bunch of power mungers must fit in there somewhere, but then thats the case with most countries.
1984? Not really... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know that I'm going to be modded as a troll for not conforming to the masses yet again, but comon, at least be more imaginative than comparing every to 1984.
Blocking part of a webpage (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Yahoo article says that it blocks portions of websites rather than whole websites. Blocking parts of individual webpages would be a bit tougher
Re:Blocking part of a webpage (Score:1, Troll)
Sung: "Well, we do have a monopoly on the world's Chinese women. Do you have any idea how many men world wide fantasize about them? They're HOT!"
Mao: "That's it! We'll get the men to fantasize about non Chinese women! We'll replace all the porn sites with sites advocating sex wit women most of our population will never meet! They'll lose interest in sex and spend their time working!"
Sung: "Brilliant! Get right on it!"
Mao: "You mean I have to implement it?"
Sung: "Or be hung for treason."
Mao: "Tech suppot!"
Re:Blocking part of a webpage (Score:1)
See (free registration required) or [telegraph.co.uk] here [house.gov].
Re:Blocking part of a webpage (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Is this valid text or government propaganda?" (Score:2)
One for China. One for the Rest of the World. (Score:1)
"A different AP article spins things slightly differently, emphasizing that Google is apparently no longer blocked in China and mentioning the selective blocking of web content only in passing."
Those AP people aren't dumb. That first story is likely to be censored by The Great Firewall, whereas this second article might be aimed at actually reaching our Chinese friends.
--
Custom Computer Systems for Discerning Tastes [crushpc.com]
Common communist ploy (Score:1)
censorship is like the world's funniest joke (Score:3, Insightful)
Test China's Firewall [imaginaryplanet.net]
Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke (Score:1)
Does that make it somehow less evil???
Tiananmen, April-June 1989 [christusrex.org]
Re:censorship is like the world's funniest joke (Score:1)
Anti corruption would be the idea expressed by the original post that someone has to protect you from certain material so that you will not be corrupted. This would imply there is something inherrantly bad about the material itself. [see the orignal post for why this argument fails.] On the other hand anti deception censorship would say that people are trying to deceive you with bad information (after all how could *ism possibly be better than what we have?). The purpose of censoship under this scenario would be to sort out and censor the "bad" information. Many reasons can be presented for why quashing the views that you don't agree with is a bad idea and exhaustive listing of these is left as an excercise for the reader.
I will however say that determining what is good and bad can be very difficult. To often we as human beings, lack the wisdom to distinguish closely spaced lines of white and black. Instead we see gray. If one cannot distinguish between the good and the bad is it right to choose good and bad for someone else? Times also change. What was once good has now fallen out favor. Likewise activities and philosophies that were once thought to be bad are now accepted. Times change and the only way to change with the times is to have an open dialog and an open mind.
The preceding words are my ramblings...
Times and reaction (Score:2)
Now if we can just get them to recognize that the legitimate government of China sits in Taipei....
what do they censor? (Score:1)
is it pedoporn, or articles like "how to build an atomic bomb using a peace of wood and some salt" or is it *useful* information?
i think this matters.
Re:what do they censor? (Score:1)
Re:what do they censor? (Score:2)
This is hilarious. They've switched half of their economy to capitalism and is still continueing to do so!
What's the big deal? (Score:1)
job at the firewall (Score:1)
They should sell it (Score:1)
Still blocked according to Real-Time Testing (Score:1)
I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China... (Score:2)
Re:I want the "The Great SMTP Wall" of China... (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And all thanks to American companies. (Score:2)
Boeing sold missle technology to the Chinese, too. If the AK-47 wasn't such a great rifle, I'd bet that Colt would sell them M-16s too.
Wasn't it Kruschev who said that the capitalists would sell the communists the rope they'd hang them with?
It's all true.
Re:And all thanks to American companies. (Score:2)
1. "Greed" made the rest of the world what it is, thank you. You wouldn't be typing away on a dirt cheap computer on a cheap Net connection if not for "greed", so quit your mindless kneejerking.
2. So then, every gun manufacturer should be sued for the people who use 'em to kill people? Car manufacturers should be sued for people who drive drunk? Baseball bat companies should be sued for people who buy their bats to bludgeon somebody to death? You're a fucking clueless moron. China's not the problem, here, not Cisco.
Ass.
Re:And all thanks to American companies. (Score:2)
Indeed. And that's a pretty damning indictment, given the current state of the rest of the world.
So then, every gun manufacturer should be sued for the people who use 'em to kill people?
If Mister Bad Guy goes up to Mister Gun Dealer and says "I need a gun with special poison-tipped bullets, so that I'll be sure to kill the President when I do my assassination attempt tomorrow", and Mister Gun Dealer designs, manufactures, and sells such a gun to Mister Bad Guy, then YES, Mister Gun Dealer is a knowing accomplice to the misdeed and should be punished.
Cisco designed, manufactured, and sold a custom firewall for the Chinese government, and cannot plausibley deny that they knew what the Chinese government was going to use it for. If mass censorship is a crime, then Cisco is just as guilty as the Chinese government is.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:And all thanks to American companies. (Score:4, Interesting)
Jesus. I'm glad you would like to live in a world where you have to do what the government considers right in addition to not doing what it thinks is wrong.
So where is this government? The one that is purely good and righteous? And unfallable?
And how paranoid do you have to be? If you had supplied sandwiches to the vending companies that filled Enron's stomachs, should you too be arrested? Or should a housewife be arrested for enabling her husband's drinking? How far does the blame go? Those that you see as at fault?
In law the blame falls squarely on those who perpetrate the act. It is only rare laws that blame accessories and enablers. To institute a web of blame and guilt is foolish... unless you are trying to build some sort of fascist thought state.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And all thanks to American companies. (Score:2)
Are these crimes in China?
Yes.
Are they morally and ethically wrong?
You seem to think that ethics is a cut and dry matter. Simple binary. Democracy: 1. Communist-Dictatorship: 0.
But it is not. Even something that seems so "obvious"... such as democracy or the death penalty. Ethics is (surprise) subjective.
So why do we have governments? To think about these things and to create a world we like.
The problem? Not all people think the same. And neither do their governments.
Corporations, OTOH, are not here to act as an ethical mouthpiece. They are here to employ citizens, make money, and follow the government's rules.
But which governments? For a multinational: the one on which its current building is sitting. The Cisco offices in Beijing are not a diplomatic embassy.
If the Krupp offices in the US started going out and executing Jews in America during 1939 they couldn't just say "Hey, we do this in Germany all the time!"
By your viewpoint, this would be perfectly logical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Can't Get Google (Score:2)
Try the recently released Googlemail
http://www.capescience.com/google/index.shtml [capescience.com]
send an e-mail to: google@capeclear.com [mailto]with your query in the subject line.
Of course, google cache is probably not accessible
Advanced (Score:4, Funny)
Just remember, in a few years time when DRM is mandatory and free speech is crippled by 'national security' and the need for everyone to be protected from alternative ideas, china will be leading the way in firewalls, and filters, and they'll be teaching _Cisco_ how to do it
Quick, Mr Bush! (Score:5, Funny)
What's that you say, Mr Bush? No, I don't think Tibet has any oil. Why do you ask?
Hello? Hello? Mr Bush?
TWW
Re:Quick, Mr Bush! (Score:2)
That's not what I said, I said that BL has an easy time recruiting by playing that card to the Muslims. The connection is bogus insofar as BL is not interested in the Palestinians.
First off, the only thing Israel is doing which is infuriating to the Islamist radicals is existing at all.
Quite right. If you moved into my house and kicked me out and then said that some mythical spirit told you it was okay I don't think I'd be too impressed either.
Time after time, Israel has met every demand made by the Palestinian leadership, only to be met with a fresh wave of murder-suicide bombings, and a fresh wave of demands.
And yet the Israelis manage to keep ahead on the death score.
Second, central to your argument here is the idea that we should be setting our foreign policy not based on what is right or just, but on what will appease the radical Islamists,
Hardly. Radical Muslims/Christian/Jews etc can all away and fuck themselves. Spending your life trying to act like characters in a badly-written fairy story is not going to get my sympathy any time soon. However, acting in such a way as to appease on such retarded group (Israelis) is bound to stir up trouble with their equally retarded foes (Palestinians). And for what? So that they can go on deluding themselves? Why bother?
If you had credible evidence of state sponsorship of terrorism here which posed an immediate threat to Great Britain
The US tolerated the activities of the IRA and allowed them to raise funding and train in the country for years. What difference is there between that and the Taliban's relationship to old BL? Taking the moral high ground is not so easy when the people you are taking to remember your past actions.
That isn't the case, though, and even the description you give, is at best extremely stretched.
It didn't seem stretched when my friend got blown up and New Yorkers were reported to have celebrated and had a whip round to buy more guns 'n ammo for the people that did it.
But you seem to think that it's okay if Mr. Hussein has a nuke, since you think he won't use it.
First of all, he doesn't have it. Second of all he's not going to get it. Thirdly, if he had it he would not use it. I agree that he is not rational but he is very keen on his own survival. He is no more likely to nuke the US, or help someone else do it, than he is to hang himself.
could arm them with such a weapon while maintaining enough deniability to make deterrence useless,
What, you mean like Mulla Omar did?
There are lots of more pressing, real threats to world peace - Pakistan/India, China's increased activity in Nepal (Mountain Nations, collect the set!), Mugabee's rampant demagogy in Africa, Chechnya/Russia, an increasingly desperate government in N. Korea.
We don't need to throw fuel on the fire when it's already too hot.
TWW
How are they doing this? (Score:2)
Re:How are they doing this? (Score:2)
Nah - it's just limiting the competition. Think of it. . . those Geeks are securing their position in the global economy by shutting down the internet to billions and billions of potential sysadmins, network technicians, computer programmers. . .
Or not. Hell, I just wanted to say billions and billions.
Re:Better them than me. (Score:2)
Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall (Score:2)
Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall (Score:2, Funny)
I love that site. When newbie 'net users ask me which sites I frequent I always point them to that one just to see their reaction.
Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How to bypass the Great Firewall (Score:2)
"The unattainable is unknown at Zombocom"
"The only limit is yourself"
"Anything is possible at Zombocom"
"The infinite is possible at Zombocom"
Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts... (Score:1)
Tiananmen, April-June 1989 [christusrex.org]
Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts... (Score:2)
Oh, about "ran them over with tanks": where do you see people getting run over? I see tanks, but I never see anybody getting run over by tanks or flat dead bodies.
Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts... (Score:1)
Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts... (Score:2)
Then enlighten me with your wisedom.
> 1. The gov't would do their best to censor any
> news of any revolts from leaving the country.
I left the country by... filling an emigration form to The Netherlands and then stepping in an airplane, 8 years ago?
Wow, my parents must have really searched through a lot of illegal sources! My god, we'll be killed if we visit China!
Oh wait, I've visited China 3 times already ever since I left! What the hell is going on? Enlighten me, oh wise NineNine!
> 2. People in China who even *think* about any
> such thing are summarily "disappeared".
You mean they invented mass-mind reading machines? I wanna get one!
Re:Since you are all 'government' nuts... (Score:2)
As for revolt, I seem to remember a little incident a few years back where chineese student protestors were gunned down in Tianamen(sp?) square.
Mao was no fool when he said that political power came from the barrel of a gun. Any significant attempt at revolt by those without guns (the chineese people) would quickly be put down by those with guns (the chineese government and its thugs).
This is ultimately the agenda behind the efforts by some to disarm the american public. George Washington called fireams "the people's liberty's teeth." To disarm is to disempower. Those without power are always at the mercy of those who have it. The fact that there are factions and groups in this country who fear the idea that free individuals would be empowered and collectively hold more power than the government says a lot about what these groups are about. It says that they have something to fear from free men and women, which is a pretty good indication that they are the enemy of free men and women. They have motives and agendas that are contrary to the wishes and well-being of the public. They know that the only way they'll ever be able to shove their agenda down our throats is if they have all the power and we have none. These types are present within any political party or group you care to mention, although there is a heavy concentration of them on the left. To disarm is to disempower and to disempower is to ultimately disenfranchise. Protect your freedom, it is the only thing more valuable than your life.
I see little reason for me to respect a government whose authority is not derived from the consent and endorsement of the governed. That is not what the chineese government is.
Re:you know what? (Score:2)
Hey, things improved in the last 10 years, I don't see a reason why things won't keep improving, especially now that they get a new government.
Re:you know what? (Score:2)
Re:you know what? (Score:2, Interesting)
Back during the revolution a crowd of 1000 protestors would be dispersed by a bunch of police, who could do nothing but drive them off. With modern riot control gear it is now possible for a relatively small group of police to effectively detain entire crowds (use CS foam to block exit paths, push crowd into corner, pluck them out one by one). Also - it is common for the Chinese to photograph large demonstrations and use modern technology to form databases of suspected dissadents. Facial recognition has its shortcomings, but it probably works to identify a good chunk of those present at what otherwise would be an anonymous protest.
That isn't to say that the people of China need to fight for themselves. However, in reality most revolutions are led by a distinct set of leaders - and China is quite good at nipping anybody who could fulfill that role before anybody even hears about them.
Re:you know what? (Score:2)
A market socialist dictatorship that keeps the peace is better than a market-destroying dictatorship that fights civil wars.
But at the same time, I think the people of China will eventually realize that political freedom is good once they run out of the ability to grow their economy under a market socialist dictatorship.
Re:Let Me Get This Straight.... (Score:2)