Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

How Chinese Evade Government's Web Controls 428

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "China is moving to 'centralize all China-based Web news and opinion under a state regulator,' the Wall Street Journal reports, but determined citizens have found a way out of previous restrictions in what has become a cat-and-mouse game: 'Many Chinese Internet users, dismissing what they call government scare tactics, find ways around censorship. The government requires users of cybercafs to register with their state-issued ID cards on each visit, but some users avoid cybercaf registration by paying off owners. In response, the government has installed video cameras in some cafs and shut others. ... While certain words such as "democracy" are banned in online chat rooms, China's Web users sometimes transmit sensitive information as images, or simply speak in code, inserting special characters such as underscoring into typing.' Also noteworthy is that major portals seem to be cooperating with authorities' restrictions: 'Insiders who work for the big portal sites say they are already in regular contact with authorities about forbidden topics, such as the outlawed Falun Gong religious group, which their teams of Web editors pull off bulletin boards.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Chinese Evade Government's Web Controls More

How Chinese Evade Government's Web Controls

Comments Filter:

  • How fitting... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Mathiasdm ( 803983 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:38AM (#13657756) Homepage
    "Move along. Nothing for you to see here."

  • 100 million users and climbing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:38AM (#13657758) Journal
    Note to Chinese government...censorship of the Internet is a lost cause, give it up. If you want to be the next economic superpower, you are going to have to deal with dissenting ideas found on the Internet. You'd do better to work out an ongoing public discussion forum on incorporating the best ideas into the public and private sectors instead of trying to censor access.

    • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:03AM (#13657940)
      Note to Chinese government...censorship of the Internet is a lost cause, give it up. If you want to be the next economic superpower, you are going to have to deal with dissenting ideas found on the Internet. You'd do better to work out an ongoing public discussion forum on incorporating the best ideas into the public and private sectors instead of trying to censor access.

      Yet the majority of Americans would blindly accept limitations on their Constitutional rights in the name of "National Security" or "Terrorism".

      It's amazing how differently our two populations behave.

      • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Irish_Samurai ( 224931 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:28AM (#13658118)
        Most Americans also have a car, two TV's, a video game system, a cell phone, a job , and could probably obtain illegal substances without fear of being caught.

        They can also protest openly (within reason) against the government without fear of being arrested.

        We're basically too busy entertaining ourselves and stuffing food in our faces to realize we are being slowly robbed of our freedoms.

        • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:4, Insightful)

          by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:35AM (#13658169)
          Most Americans also have a car, two TV's, a video game system, a cell phone, a job , and could probably obtain illegal substances without fear of being caught.

          I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that of the online population of Chinese residents (100 million) most of them have TVs, gaming systems, and certainly a cell phone. They also likely have a job and possibly a car. Illegal substances, while rarer, I'm sure still exist and can be obtained w/o too much worry.

          While entertaining themselves via the Internet and other means, they are still able to see that their "freedoms" are being entroached and that they need to subvert government "scare tactics". Americans would just shrug and say, "I'm safer now because of tight and constitutionally ignorant controls than I was before 9/11/01."

          I wonder at which point Americans will revert to standing up for their rights. Probably when their TV shows are edited even more all in the name of Family First.
          • 100 million out of 1,306,313,812 is not a majority. Actually, it's nowhere close.

            So even if the complete 100 million online Chinese had everything they could want, a much larger chunk of the population is really unhappy with the state of their existence. Report on the subject. [msn.com] Basically, the American people are given all the Soma [huxley.net] they want. By the time we need to stand up for ourselves, we won't know how.

        • They can also protest openly (within reason) against the government without fear of being arrested.

          All except Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested for protesting in Washington yesterday.

          • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            You mean the "arrest" that was foretold with a E-Mail for the press to attend and watch
            the arrest?

            http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/130422/in dex.php [indymedia.org]

            And also included these fine heifers?

            http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/det ails_pop.aspx?iid=55773165&cdi=0 [gettyimages.com]

          • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:4, Insightful)

            by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:14AM (#13658457)
            Which is exactly what she wanted and tried to do. She purposely did not apply for a permit to protest and purposely sat down in front of the White House, knowing, and being told, she had to move along. Her entire goal in the protests was to get arrested to attract media attention. She was absolutely thrilled and smiling when she finally got arrested. Anybody who thinks this is an act of government oppression rather than a publicity stunt is just as dangerously biased to the left as the government is to the right and so wrapped up in their anti-Bush administration views they've lost touch with reality just as much as the religious right that's attacking the Constitution.
          • All except Cindy Sheehan, who was arrested for protesting in Washington yesterday.

            YM "wanted to be arrested" HTH.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
            Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:38AM (#13658658) Journal
          "Most Americans also have a car, two TV's, a video game system, a cell phone, a job , and could probably obtain illegal substances without fear of being caught."

          Uhm, no?

          Hasn't Katrina taught you anything? Do you stil think the US is 'the richest nation on earth'? Look at unemployment, illiteracy, innumeracy, infant mortality (43rd, after Cuba!) and poverty figures for the last decades. Compare to any other country and then do the same for the added figures for the whole EU. Be shocked.

          "They can also protest openly (within reason) against the government without fear of being arrested."

          Yeah...Sheehan found that out today.

          "We're basically too busy entertaining ourselves and stuffing food in our faces to realize we are being slowly robbed of our freedoms."

          No...to many of you believe FOX and your president.

          • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:4, Informative)

            by Irish_Samurai ( 224931 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @11:05AM (#13658884)
            What are you talking about?

            Reference on unemployment. [cia.gov]

            We may not be the best, but were pretty well off. And of those impoverished people in New Orleans, how many of them didn't have a cell phone? How many didn't have a TV? I will agree that they may not have had the financial resources to flee the area, but that doesn't mean they lived in a box. We are not discussing the same thing. Get off the scemantics. Illiteracy and innumeracy are problems, but lots of people who are afflicted with those issues still have freaking cell phones. It's a matter of priorities.

            Yeah...Sheehan found that out today.

            No permit, asked to move 3 times. Publicity stunt. Notice the within reason part? Across the street would have been completely acceptable.

            No...to many of you believe FOX and your president.

            You're an idiot, you just disagreed with someone who agrees with you. Quit with the knee jerk reaction and think. We are too busy stuffing our faces. Check it out. [obesityinamerica.org]

          • Um, you do know that by all objective measurements, the US has far lower unemployment than the EU, right? If you use total percentage employed, the difference is staggering. If you use percentage seeking work that can't find it, the numerical difference is small, but important. The US still has the "best" economy bar none.

            You can argue about quality of life (but not unless you have experienced both, of course), but the economy is about numbers - stuff is pretty easy to prove there!
      • In their chatrooms though, they are forbidden from saying that "the United States' adoption of democracy is the single worst idea in history". They dont want Democracy to exist, even as an idea. It DOES exist, regardless of any constitution's or policy's thoughts of it, and any attempt to hide that fact is just ridiculous.

        It would never happen that the US would block all online material with reference to "bombs" and "nuclear power plants" just because we're afraid of ANY thought of that in ANY context. Bo

      • it's not blindly accept (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zogger ( 617870 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:39AM (#13658192) Homepage Journal
        Phooie! Lets get real here. Who's "blindly accepting"? We are under painful threat of personal terrorism if we DON'T accept their dictates. Americans know we are getting screwed,you would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think this, the deal is, the government will and does use force-at any level-to get their way, up to the point of the barrel of a gun. It is not 'we the people" anymore, it is "us versus them".

        Want to go exercise political "free speech" at a rally? If they have decided that speech is ok here but not over there across the street, their armed agents WILL use any amount of force necessary to make you comply. How about "random courtesy roadblocks"? What BS is this, when I was a kid this was taught to us as only something some tyrannical regime pulled, the third reich or stalins soviet union or some place like that, we were shown how utterly bogus that was, because it's true, it IS bogus. Now? What are you supposed to do, NOT STOP? Guess what happens to you if you don't stop, they'll run you off the road or shoot you in the head. How about taxes going through the roof, what do you do about it, taxes and out of control government spending? Vote for the two cooperating political gangs who have hijacked government and make it near impossible for any other party to actually function and get a toe hold in? they have killed off any effective third party action, this is pretty obvious since the reform party actually made a showing. Even took them off the national debates, the League of Women Voters was so disgusted with that blatant power grab that they stopped sponsoring the national debates. A CLUE. How much of "black box" electronic vote hijacking, gerrymandering and skewing the nomination and ballot process has to occur before the government guys doing it arrest themselves, which is what it would take? that just ain't gonna happen, and everyone knows it, and you as joe citizen can't just go and "detain" some governmental crook. They would kill you dead.

        We can all see corporate/governmental industry collusion, no bid contracts, blood profits pushed over everything else, yet what are you supposed to actually do about it? You can't stop it physically, you can't vote it away, and any crimes committed by the government are aided and abetted by their armed agents in various colored uniforms. I've been in this gig for decades, for every one little retreat back to the constitution we've seen, we get several large steps forward into despotism.

        No the problem is, the government has way too many "just following orders" types who will follow any order given to them, even if they know it is pretty dodgy. And that means both overseas and domestically. Wars based on utter lies and fabrications-still being waged "just following orders". .Look at what they did with hurricane katrina, went WAY out of their way to keep private help and citizens out,walmart trucks with water told to go back, citizen convoys with rescue boats, ordered to go back, civilian communication lines CUT by agents of the feds, on and on, until it had dissolved into chaos, THEN they decide to show up to 'restore order". THIS IS A CLUE. That isn't an "intelligence failure" like that additional 9-11 bigfat lie, it was done on purpose.

        Face reality, we have been under a violent armed coup for several years now, just no one really wants to say that out loud too much. check the "hate crimes" bill about to pass, this will affect online and printed and broadcast speech, yet the mass media is mostly ignoring it-wonder why? could it be they are in on it at the top, it's the same technofeudalists who run things, the same elite?

        From my perspective, the coup started in earnest when they got clean away with whacking JFK and it has gone downhill from there. A nice slow semi stealth dictatorial take over, every day, establish more command and control and surveillance.

        We aren't too many years away from being more like China
        • sickening that stuff like, "THIS IS A CLUE. That isn't an "intelligence failure" like that additional 9-11 bigfat lie, it was done on purpose." gets modded insightful, when the parent has no grasp for facts (like the difference between federal and state govt response to katrina) beyond his ranting quasi conspiracy theories of coups and dictatorships.
      • It's been four years... I still don't see these limitations you speak of, unless you're referring to Howard Stern being forced into a 500 million dollar contract w/ Sirrius Satellite.... (won't someone think of the children???)

        Please elaborate on this. I just haven't heard of anyone's rights being limited. I still see war protests happening. I still see people speaking freely about whatever political views they have. I still see religious and areligious views being upheld in courts of law. I still see peopl

        • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by thebdj ( 768618 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:31AM (#13658600) Journal
          Protests do still happen, and while some people will argue with you that the federal, state and local governments create these "restricted" areas for these demonstrations as a means to censor the protestors this really isn't the case. There are actually plenty of good and logical safety reasons for this, so as far as our ability to still protest and have protected speech, those aren't going anywhere. You know why those won't go anywhere? Because some of the largest and richest people in the USA are media conglomerates or other people with a high interest in the media.

          Due process, however, is one that comes under direct fire. The Patriot Act, as it is so called, actually gave the ability for the US to hold suspected terror suspects as "enemy combatants" taking them outside the realm of Due Process. This "war on terror" is a new beast with no borders, as has been pointed out by the government before. The problem is this law provides no limits to who can be placed in prison indefinitely and not given access to legal counsel or a right to a speedy trial. While it might be a bit paranoid to think that this will turn into a witch hunt where thousands or millions or normal citizens are locked away, it is a possibility thanks to the law.

          You are correct in stating we are a long way off from a totalitarian state as China. The bi-partisan government does sort of prevent a single party from gaining too much control, but things could change if Democrats or Republicans were to lose bad in elections resulting in a major lopsided government. The bi-partisan problem also prevents new ideas from being introduced because third parties, two of the largest being the Libertarians and Greens, rarely see much if any coverage, and neither party has had much success getting into the federal government.

          It might only be a matter of time before we see the end of China as it is today. The government already relented to a capitalist economy, seeing it as the best way to promote the countries growth and make it a world power to truly be concerned about. I think that slowly they will be forced to change their ways, but not in any sort of rapid progression, unless of course there were to be a political uprising, but I do not see that being too likely.

        • Re:100 million users and climbing (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @11:01AM (#13658853) Journal
          You have a concentration camp filled with people who are bereft of habeus corpus, and will not be tried by a propper jury. You have a camp filled with people (including american citizens!) for who the law does not apply.

          How the fuck dare you say "I just haven't heard of anyone's rights being limited"? With free speech zones where protesters are herded to fields miles away from where the action is, how the fuck can you still say "I still see people speaking freely about whatever political views they have."? With religious thought being pushed into science classes, how the fuck can you say "I still see religious and areligious views being upheld in courts of law"?

          With all that going on, how can you say that the US is free-er than ever? Are you really that good at deluding yourself?

          And remember, if you reply: 'But [blahterroristsblah]'; that is not a counterargument. That is rationalisation.
        • I just haven't heard of anyone's rights being limited. I still see war protests happening. I still see people speaking freely about whatever political views they have. ... I still see people getting due process

          I think I got all of those covered right here:

          http://www.2600.com/rnc2004/ [2600.com]

          Read the whole thing, and you'll see:

          The march was then diverted onto 16th Street.....
          At the intersection of 16th and Irving Place, I saw what the police had done. They had cleverly parked all of their Vespas across the street
      • It may take killing a bunch of people, but if people get it into their heads that "democracy = death", the government will succeed in suppressing it enough. See, they don't need to suppress it 100%, just enough so that people do not associate "democracy" with "eternal bliss".

        Yes, it might be tough to impose that for a while, but we are talking about a country that mostly succeeded in putting forth the idea that "education = evil" for quite some time. How did they do it? Death, and plenty of it in gory ex

      • The thing about our government, our policies, our laws is that they can be modified/reversed. If Congress comes out with an assinine law that inhibits our rights, we can have it removed. The President can veto it, the Supreme Court can declare it unconstitutional...and in the end the people can vote new representatives (and there are plenty of choices, contrary to popular belief) to recind the laws.

        To equate the US gov't to the Chinese gov't in any fashion is just nonsense.
    • Not going to work. Too much of their system is based on control of information. they have to try and hold on to that control, because if they lose it, they'll end up with another Tiananmen Square...and another and another...

      Here, people are passive. Things are too good, no one cares enough to put themselves out. Everyone has too much to lose. The population is also on the old side, which tends to curb activism.

      There? The more they communicate, the more they realize that they're paid nothing, they're treated like crap, they're not allowed to have dissenting opinions without being thrown in jail. The more they'll realise that they don't really have that much to lose...Not everyone, of course, but what percentage would it take to be too much to suppress? There are a hell of a lot of people in China...And thanks to their female infantacide issue, they've got a large number of unattached young men, the most volatile population group.

      China's in for interesting times.
      • The sad truth is that the Chinese are where they are now because of the money they get from people in free countries like America and Europe (yes I know Europe is not a country, I live there). Many people in these countries know the Chinese are treated like shit and don't get what they deserve, but still we buy their stuff. Why don't we all boycot Chinese products until the Chinese gouvernment changes its ways? Because we like to buy our stuff cheap. Disgusting when you think about it. I'm also to blame; I
      • Not going to work.

        Me neither. I'm calling in sick today.

      • I don't get how you can censor the internet. How do you censor pictures with hidden messages, flash games that you have to get to level 3 before it gives you your email, encrypted text, etc. I'd be glad to put up a website that feeds an encrypted uncensored version of cnn or something like that to china.

        Can someone explain why this isn't possible? Am I that naive?

    • Lost war (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AnonymousYellowBelly ( 913452 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:09AM (#13657974)
      You are right, but most empires do not like to quietly go down in flames. On the other hand...

      I do not think that freedom of speech is necessary for economic growth. Sometimes it might work the other way around. Having a strong leadership with no space for dissent guarantees that if the leader knows the way no time will be lost discussing. Look at Slashdot, many times the discussion is so out of focus that no usable conclusion is ever reached. A group is trying to troll, another to be funny, etc. I know that the ./ is not supposed to be going anywhere, and that it's purpose is just informing nerds (TWICE) about stuff that matters, but having freedom of speech does not solve many problems.

      Please, don't jump to the conclusion that I want oppressive governments or dictators. All I'm saying is that China can be (IS) the next economic superpower without the civil liberties or political models of the West. Most people don't know what real freedom is, nor do they care if they have enough 'freedom' to have fun and live a 'no worries' life.

      I sometimes think that 'freedom' is way over rated by people like us, who believe in some World way beyond the Rainbow where all software is GNU-like and MS does not exist.

      • Re:Lost war (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @11:19AM (#13659009) Homepage Journal
        Please, don't jump to the conclusion that I want oppressive governments or dictators. All I'm saying is that China can be (IS) the next economic superpower without the civil liberties or political models of the West. Most people don't know what real freedom is, nor do they care if they have enough 'freedom' to have fun and live a 'no worries' life.

        I've got to say that you're really hitting the nail on the head here. For years I thought that only through democracy and personal freedoms could a state advance itself, socially and technologically. I would have cited the migrations of academics and scientists from facist regimes in the 30s and 40s, as well as the general social decline of these regiemes as evidence of this.

        However, at a glance, China appears to be advancing without democracy and civil rights. It's a frightening thought that the chinese communist party may have found a way to have their cake and eat it too, by becoming an economic superpower while still maintaining authoritarianism. It is worth noting that ~800 million chinese are not benefiting from this growth. Still china is advancing in leaps and bounds in nearly every sphere but civil rights.

        If the party's model proves successful, how long before industrialists and polititians in the west begin pioneering this new approach, and we all begin to slide back into unashamed plutocracy? I worry that the values of the enlightenment are in danger of being rolled back by the very technologies they have help to create. I'm not a luddite by any manner or means, but I think a lot of modern technology has made tyranny a much easier business.

  • Hurrah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Knight Thrasher ( 766792 ) * on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:40AM (#13657762) Journal
    Will the Chinese soon write their own underground freedom documents?

    Teh D3cl4r4ti0n 0f 1nd3p3nd4nc3?

    • How's this?

      When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one united people to dissolve the political bands of government which have strangled the rights of the people, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the dissolution of their government.

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that

      • Do they really have a constitution that provides them these freedoms? English linky?? If so shouldn't they be charged for civil rights abuses by the UN if they arn't following their own rule of law?

        • Re:Hurrah! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <`akaimbatman' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:09AM (#13658415) Homepage Journal
          PRC Constitution [people.com.cn]

          Some of the more salient articles:

          Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

          Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.

          Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited. Article 38. The personal dignity of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Insult, libel, false charge or frame-up directed against citizens by any means is prohibited.

          Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

          Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

          Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.


          Sounds nice, doesn't it? Try this one article on for size, though:

          Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.


          Note the emphasis, taken from the original document. Nice to have a constitution that doesn't matter to the state, isn't it?
    • 1nd3p3nd3nc3

    • I'm thinking a php encrypted website where only the 'freedom fighters' know the private key would allow better communcations than having to translate everything through http://www.ogobin.org/tmp/31337.php [ogobin.org]

      Don't know if it's doable, but seems like a reasonable concept.

      And, yeah, there's the possibilty of being tortured for the private key. So, that's kind of a downside.

  • Information freed! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:40AM (#13657763) Homepage Journal
    This article helps reinforce my constant philosophy that information is now freed of regulation and censorship, and that no law can trump humanity's moral law that makes only offensive crimes truly wrong, legally or morally.

    I feel bad for the Chinese, but thankfully the ways around censorship are growing in number. We have to note these gains internationally as we watch our speech get restrained even in the U.S. [lewrockwell.com]

    No law will prevent the average person from doing what they feel is right, which to me is proof of the inherent rights we're all born with. Every person in this world has the God-given (or inherent) right to speak. It is only government that attempts to restrain it.

    Take note, your freedom to speak is declining as we support persons we vote for to further degrade our rights. As the Chinese save up to 40% of their income, they also find ways to save their rights. As we U.S. citizens look to the federal government to educate us, rebuild our mistakes and provide our retirements, we save nothing (1%) and lose rights.

    • Re:Information freed! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <`akaimbatman' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:52AM (#13657850) Homepage Journal
      It's worse than just censorship. The problem is that China is commiting blatent violations of their own constitution. From the summary:

      ...such as the outlawed Falun Gong religious group...


      Now take a look at their constitution [people.com.cn]:

      Article 36. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination.


      But it's okay that they throw these people in jail because...

      Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.


      (Emphasis in the original.) So in one article, the "People's" Republic of China says that their entire constitution is subject to the whim of the state. Is that really freedom and personal rights?

      • Re:Information freed! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:57AM (#13657898)
        So in one article, the "People's" Republic of China says that their entire constitution is subject to the whim of the state.

        Well, shit, at least the Chinese have the decency to put that article in their Constitution. Plenty of other governments do exactly the same thing, they just pretend that they don't. The Chinese are refreshingly honest and up-front about it.

      • Re:Information freed! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by oni ( 41625 )
        The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state

        Yep. The UN has that little caveat in their Declaration of Human Rights. It seems to be popular fine print to include. I really prefer a system that says, "the state can't do this, this, and this, no matter what" to a system that says, "you can do this so long as you don't get in our way."

        As in the US: "Right X shall not be abridged" And yes, I know that the government
        • As in the US: "Right X shall not be abridged" And yes, I know that the government tries to push the line - but here in the US, we the people can push back because the wording is clear, we are in the right.

          It's not just the wording, though. If it was just words on paper, they would have been abridged a LONG time ago. What value are words with no backing?

          The true value of the words in our Constitution stems from the second amendment and the desire for freedom in the hearts of Americans. If our government shou

          • Re:Information freed! (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            "no US leader in his right mind would attempt to institute a toltarian rule"

            I'm not so sure about that. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/26/bush.milita ry/ [cnn.com]

            Considering that, as Commander in Chief, Bush is effectively in charge of the military... His pushing for more military involvement in the affairs of US citizens seems a bit suspicious.

            If he gets his way, all it would take is some dramatic nationwide 'terrorist' threat to bring what would essentially be martial law down on the country.

            Of course, you di

            • The Military as a Civil Institution (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Shihar ( 153932 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @11:38AM (#13659185)
              The US will not abandon elections any time soon. If you know ANYTHING of the US military, you know that if Bush's term came to an end and he didn't get his ass out of the office, the military would pick his ass up and kick it out of the military for him.

              People often forget how important the military is for a functional civil society. A military that respects the rule of law and seeks to protect the state is extremely important. If your military does not feel like it is commanded by the civilian state and feels that its goal is not the protection of the civilian government, you tend to get overthrown governments. Popular uprisings that are not crushed are rare, but the militaries taking over civilian governments are a dime a dozen.

              In this regards, the American democracy is one of the most secure in the world. The US military would NEVER take up arms against the civilian government unless a leader in the civilian government refused to get his ass out of office when his time was up. Further, even if the military did turn on the civilian government for the purpose of dragging Bush's ass out of office once his term was up, it would end its role there and go back to letting lawyers and politicians clean up the mess.

              Fear Bush for whatever reasons you like, but don't fear him because he is going to use the military on the civilian government. In fact, if you recall, the US military refused to enter New Orleans and conduct any sort of peace keeping operations within the city because it is so strictly forbidden in the US constitutions. The only thing the military was allowed to do was provide logistical support and search and rescue operations. If a city getting wiped off the map is not disaster enough for the US military to bend the rules, I would say it is safe to say nothing is going to cause them to break them.

              • ...If you know ANYTHING of the US military, you know that if Bush's term came to an end and he didn't get his ass out of the office, the military would pick his ass up and kick it out of the military for him...

                ...unless a leader in the civilian government refused to get his ass out of office...

                ...even if the military did turn on the civilian government for the purpose of dragging Bush's ass out of office...

                You certainly seem to have a "thing" for Bush's ass, don't you...

    • Re:Information freed! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:59AM (#13657918) Homepage Journal
      ...no law can trump humanity's moral law...

      Humanity's what? That's a totally meaningless phrase.

      Every person in this world has the God-given (or inherent) right to speak.

      And this is a dangerous phrase. You have exactly one inherent right: to die. I, for one, intend to put off exercising that right as long as possible. What you are talking about here is a privilege, and like all privileges, it must be worked for. Denying this is going to lead to exactly the phenomenon you're seeing in the US: erosion of civil liberties because people aren't willing to work for them --- because, after all, if they're God-given rights then God will look after them, right?

      Remember: there is no one true way. You believe it is morally correct to allow people to say what they will, simply because you live in a culture that thinks that is important. Other cultures are different, and assuming that your values are valid for a culture as radically different as China's is is simply incorrect. I'm not denying that China's government is doing some pretty nasty things, but simply saying that they're wrong and you're right is a vast oversimplification of the issues.

      • Re:Information freed! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by pizzaman100 ( 588500 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:14AM (#13658005) Journal
        You believe it is morally correct to allow people to say what they will, simply because you live in a culture that thinks that is important. Other cultures are different, and assuming that your values are valid for a culture as radically different as China's is is simply incorrect.

        According to TFA - people in China are looking for ways to evade the government's web controls. So despite differences in cultures they still value freedom.

    • This is a bit off-topic, but from that link you provide:

      We walked from Lafayette Park to the Guard House at the White House. My sister and I, and other Gold Star Families for Peace members, and some members of Military Families, asked to meet with the President. We again wanted to know: What is the Noble Cause? Our request was, of course, denied. They wouldn't even accept any letters or petitions or pictures of our dead.

      WTF did they expect? Protestors are so friggin' self-righteous. "I went to the W
    • we save nothing (1%) and lose rights

      The fact that Americans save only 1% of their incomes is not entirely indicative of an unwillingness to save, but rather it is more often the result of a system that is designed to reward the spender and punish the saver. The tax laws and fiscal policies of this nation make saving relatively unattractive for even the most determined savers among us, who wants to save their money at 3% when you could get employee pricing and no interest financing on your big screen HDT


  • The question is, which scares the Chinese government more? Democracy or porn?

    And which will be more difficult to filter out?

  • TOR (Score:3, Informative)

    by sneezinglion ( 771733 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:43AM (#13657782)
    I hope they are using something like TOR(http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]) so that they can effectively browse how and when they want.

    • Re:TOR (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Tor is easily detected and easily blocked.

      Tor will hide the information you're viewing or sending but it will not stop the authorities from knowing that you have something to hide.

      • Re:TOR (Score:3, Informative)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )
        Tor would be simple to block - the Chinese government could hook up modified versions Tor, compile a list of IP addresses in the "onion skin" and firewall them out. They could even run a bunch of phony clients, published from their own bogus servers and just sit and wait for the traffic to flow through them. A few bullets through the head for the worst "offenders" would pretty much curb the activity.

    • Re:TOR (Score:3, Insightful)

      by texasthunder ( 918218 )
      I talked with the TOR writer and he said that the users in China would need a TOR directory server. That can easily be blocked. That is what is really needed a way for users in China to access a TOR directory server.

  • In China (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Internet censors you.... wait a sec....

  • Astroturf? (Score:3)

    by cybermage ( 112274 ) * on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:44AM (#13657790) Homepage Journal
    This article was submitted by:

              Carl Bialik from the WSJ
        AKA
              wsjarticles@wsj.com

    and the story is at:

              http://online.wsj.com/public/ [wsj.com]...

    I'm sure it's just a coincidence ;)

  • Useless. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wlan0 ( 871397 )
    Even more, when the young hackers and spammers in China realise that they are being opressed, they will try to get out, and I'm sure they'll open up a lot. It's impossible to regulate so many people on something as free as the internet.

  • Communism requires information restrictions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wheelbarrow ( 811145 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:49AM (#13657824)
    The Chinese Communist governement is fighting a battle that they will eventually lose because they have lost the hearts and minds of their people. The internet today provides the average Chinese citizen with enough information about alternative forms of government that communist propaganda is just one source of information among many. The Chinese communist government cannot finger every hole in the dike forever. They're already knee deep in the leaks. I'm proud to be part of the wider information technology community that is taking communism down.

    • s/Communism/Authoritarianism (Score:4, Insightful)

      by stinerman ( 812158 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:04AM (#13657950)
      Maybe then your post is worthy of a +4.

      finger every hole in the dike forever

      ROFL

      Please tell me the pun was intended.
    • You assume that the Chinese government have lost the support of their citizens, but is this really true?

      Large areas of the Chinese populace are still uneducated and uninformed of the world outside China or perhaps even of these very topics.

      And just like most of the democratic countries I know (including the US and my own), most people are either supporting their government or simply don't care as long as they can lead their lives.

      Although I'm sure there are many Chinese that are aware of the issues in their

    • Re:Communism requires information restrictions (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:16AM (#13658024)
      Communism took itself down in China years ago.

      No, whats hanging on for dear life there is fascism. The government is attempting to control everything you think or do, from what political party you support [slashdot.org] to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home [slashdot.org]. Meanwhile, the state and our exalted leader is beyond reproach, and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to our country [foxnews.com].
    • Don't forget the Neocons in charge require communication restriction. No pictures of dead bodies floating in the water of New Orleans, no pictures of the coffins of our servicemen who paid the ultimate price in Iraq and Afghanistan. They put people in jail without communication, without access to lawyers, strip them of their citizenship. They treat prisoners of war in defiance of the principles of the Geneva convention. This is America. How did we become like the Chinese communists? How long has the hunger

  • Of course (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kevin_conaway ( 585204 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:50AM (#13657837) Homepage
    Also noteworthy is that major portals seem to be cooperating with authorities' restrictions

    Thats noteworthy? That the big companies in China are complying with Chinese law? I'm speechless.

    Kudos for the citizens for finding clever ways to communicate. Its not as if they can just PGP their messages or do anything really suspicious. Just the fact that you're not doing "normal" surfing would probably be enough to raise someones eyebrow.
  • is that you ban the opinions on the words as well.

    You ban the opinions that democracy is not right for China at this particular time in its history.

    You ban the opinions that the Falun Gong are a bunch of deluded nuts who are being used for various purposes.

    There are several sides, including the gummints, to every story.

    • Re:The problem with banning the words (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rakshasa Taisab ( 244699 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:06AM (#13657965) Homepage
      There's an interesting fantasy book by Gene Wolfe where an empire has declared that one may only speak using sentences from the holy books. This was supposed to prevent anyone from communicating anything improper.

      So a captive from this empire would tell a story by selecting passages from this holy book that matched what he wanted to say, it was not as efficient and required the listener to interpret more. But still it did not prevent him from telling a story unrelated to the holy books.

      Banning words will only make the communication channel less efficient, and somewhat more ambigious, but people will still be able to say what they want.

  • Pecunia Non Olet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by korba ( 710095 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:53AM (#13657862) Homepage
    Also noteworthy is that major portals seem to be cooperating with authorities' restrictions.

    Happy 7th Birthday, Google.

  • Private VPNs & Proxys? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OlivierB ( 709839 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:58AM (#13657911)
    Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't the availability of free occidental VPN servers and CGI proxys overwhelm the authorities?
    I mean they can block a few IP adresses by handpicking them but they cannot go ahead and block the whole internet, can they?

    Some small app ala Google WIFI with rolling IPs (in an encrypted list of course) connecting to dynamic hostnames would be too much of a task for the authorities to bear with.

    Any other ideas?
    • I mean they can block a few IP adresses by handpicking them but they cannot go ahead and block the whole internet, can they?

      Yes, they could and I'm sure that they would if it wouldn't cause the nation to erupt into civil war.

      Some small app ala Google WIFI with rolling IPs (in an encrypted list of course) connecting to dynamic hostnames would be too much of a task for the authorities to bear with.

      They would outlaw encryption as evidence of crimes against the state and they would track down encrypted radio si
    • "Private VPNs" was supposed to read "Public VPNs" of course...
    • Nope.

      Crypto is probably illegal in China and even if it wasn't, its not like their government has any reasonable precautions to keep an overzealous prosecution in check.

  • Falun Gong (Score:2, Troll)

    by Apreche ( 239272 )
    So yeah, cencorship is bad. And all the props to the people who get around it.

    But I see these Falun Gong people on the streets of NY protesting and handing out whatever crazy newspaper they've got. And while the fact that their beliefs are illegal is bad, these Falun Gong people are kind of nutty. They do some wacky mediation stuff. And they dress up as people being tortured with rags covered in fake blood. There's a huge wikipedia article on it you can read.

    What I'm trying to say is that it is wrong for th
    • "So yeah, cencorship[sic] is bad."

      I would agree that GOVERNMENT censorship is nearly always bad.
      But, I would argue that PERSONAL censorship is wise, good and necessary.

      Example:
      While I would never advocate, nor agree with, government censorship of theories that the Earth is flat, I have already resolved that issue for myself and don't waste time on it anymore.
  • It's going to get a lot harder for the Chinese mafia government to control or track people's Internet use when hundreds of millions of them have swarm-tech mobile devices. Hopping along each other's connections to "the Net" offers lots of ways to anonymize and hide just with whom the bit stops. And since swarm economics favor massive, dense sharing, China is its natural home.
  • Every one in a while I still get those e-mails about the goverment trying to tax e-mail. Anyone in the networking community knows this is logistically impossible due to the nature of the SMTP protocol, the Internet, etc. In the same way many believe it is also difficult if not impossible, for the government to truly censor the Internet.

    Here comes China. China is only one of many countries that filters Internet and media content. It's no where near as extreme say North Korea, which doesn't allow ANYTHING in.
  • It is true that the Chinese censorship has many holes. When I was in Shanghai last April, I was able to tunnel to a western server and be censorship-free. On the other hand, other than a few annoyances, like having google.ca redirected to google.cn, and Groklaw (!) blocked, I couldn't find any inflammatory stuff that I couldn't reach directly. Of course, I don't read Chinese, so non-English pages might be their principal target.

    But one should not take the existence of loopholes to mitigate the pernicio

  • this is normal... in a sense good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:18AM (#13658044) Homepage
    I had a Chinese friend tell me he found it normal that the Chinese government controlled the internet and information the way they do. His argument was that if you change the dynamics too quickly you can do more damage to a country's economy and people. To support his point he used Russia and Irak. He says the changes made in those countries were too drastic over too short a period of time. People need to be psychologically ready before accepting the challenge of self-rule. He also says that the Chinese governing body knows that the transition will happen (to democracy) but they are controlling every step (yes to some extent to benefit from the power) to ensure that the whole country doesn't fall into chaos.

    I'm not sure I agreed with everything he said but it certainly made an interesting discussion.

  • Compare Chineese vs. US power structure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RradRegor ( 913123 ) <rdarr1@ a d e l p hia.net> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:25AM (#13658099) Journal
    Both China and the United States are actively trying to "control information" on the internet. Its interesting to me to look at the differences and similarities to see what that says about who has the real power in each country.

    In China, what is forbidden is anything that might threaten the obvious power structure of governmnet. In the United States, forbidden information is anything that hurts the profits of a large corporation. Even honest commentary that names the company responsible is effectively impossible here, unless you can afford to fight the charges of slander or trademark infringement in court. The DMCA is another example that's been covered exhaustively elsewhere.

    I've heard it said by someone else, and someone please tell me who if you know, that in America we have free speech only as long as it doesn't make any difference to anyone. As soon as what we say has an impact on someone's life or a company's bottom line, then we can't say it anymore. Is that really freedom?

    • Come on. Slander is NOT free speech. See Slander and Libel [wikipedia.org]. You'll see that saying "Ipod batteries are crap!" is perfectly acceptable.

      To compare this to the PRC's attitude towards democracy and free speech really shows bad faith.

    • I've heard it said by someone else, and someone please tell me who if you know, that in America we have free speech only as long as it doesn't make any difference to anyone. As soon as what we say has an impact on someone's life or a company's bottom line, then we can't say it anymore. Is that really freedom?

      Yeah... That's because we have never lived in a free society. We live in a liberal society (NO NO NO IT BEARS NO RESEMBLENCE TO DEMOCRATS LIBERAL). Essentially, it ammounts to doing whatever you want

      • Thanks for the reference. I found the essay online here [fordham.edu] and read a bit of it, it seems profoundly on topic so I wanted to get the link up before the main post gets old.

        One philosphical thought I had that may not have been covered in the 19th century western thinking (because its an Eastern concept) is the fact that in a competitive market, what helps the perceived interest of one entity will often harm the perceived interest of another. Help and harm here being entirely subjective, unless you apply the

      • Re:It's because we live in a liberal society (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:45AM (#13658724)
        Essentially, it ammounts to doing whatever you want to without harming other people.

        Except for all the chemicals the government has rather arbitrarily decided you aren't allowed to put into your own body. And you can't break encryption to watch media you bought on other platforms. And you can't download stuff that's no longer available to purchase. And you can't drive without wearing your seatbelt. And... you get the point. And the current religious right in power is moving towards placing even more restrictions on what consenting adults can and cannot do.

  • Falun Gong... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @09:52AM (#13658287) Homepage Journal
    In case you don't know about the Falun Gong group mentioned in the summary, I've read about them. This group is categorized as a destructive cult by various organizations and cult experts, including Rick Ross (famous anti-scientology deprogrammer). Apparently its teachings [nyud.net] include conspiracies, alien invaders and interdimensional travel (WTF? O.o)

    Here's more info on Falun Gong [nyud.net], and a testimony of a former member [nyud.net] (which doesn't say much unfortunately).

    Anyway, it's sad that the reason this cult was censored, is not because they abuse their followers physically and emotionally, but because they threaten the chinese national security.
  • Let's not forget how far China has come since Richard Nixon's visit back in the Seventies. Compare 1970's China with modern China and you will see. I am not against gradual change as long as it's constant.

    Confucius said something like, 'it doesn't matter how slow you go as long as you don't stop.'

  • Whats so bad about Interent Censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RagingChipmunk ( 646664 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:24AM (#13658540) Homepage
    My-oh-my how we whine about the "bad" chinese govt for not allowing their citizens access to crap news sites like CNN. Yet we all shop at Walmart, or Target, who imports so much of their retail items from China.

    My-oh-my how we wiggle the accusing finger while wearing the "Made in China" t-shirts. Frankly, the truth is that we really dont care what they do in China, so long as the products remain cheap. I dont care - I have enough problems right here to deal with - Corporate News Censorship is greater than any US govt censorship.

    Having been to China, I can tell you that most ppl there dont care either about what sites they can or cant access. A kilometer out of the cities is rural poverty that shocked me even in the light of India or Nepal. These chinese ppl would much rather have clean water, and a sewage system. Maybe hope for rural electricity!

    In a perverse way, economic exploitation isnt so bad. The drive to sell more products to the west begrudgingly forces infrastrucure improvements. It draws more ppl to the cities where clean water and sewage exist. I'm not calling for "greed is good" posters, but, doing no business with china would have the tangible effect of setting back the population of worker lifestyle.

    So, whats so bad about greed and their own censorship?

Slashdot Top Deals

Your password is pitifully obvious.

Close