Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software The Internet Your Rights Online

Verso Trials Skype Blocking in China 125

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the no-soup-for-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes to tell us MacWorld is reporting that Verso, a US company based in Atlanta, GA, has just begun a paid trial for 'NetSpective'. Verso hopes to use NetSpective, and M-Class filter to block VoIP calls made using Skype in China. From the article: "While Verso said in its release that the use of Skype is illegal in China, the situation is more nuanced. Chinese government officials have been generally tolerant of VoIP software, such as Skype, that is used to make calls from one PC to another. But the ability of Skype users to make calls to a phone via the SkypeOut service is more sensitive, because this directly affects the revenue that operators such as China Telecom earn from international phone calls." This seems to be just another in the continuing campaign of China vs VoIP.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Verso Trials Skype Blocking in China More

Verso Trials Skype Blocking in China

Comments Filter:

  • FP (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Looks like VoIP is the chink in their armor

  • Remember kids... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BluRBD!E ( 627484 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:15AM (#14024171)
    every time you use skype to subvert the rule of your oppresive government, god kills a kitten.
    • "Every time you use skype to subvert the rule of your oppresive government, that government jails another dissident"

      Nice to see technology from 'the land of the f[r]ee' being used to help the land of the not-so-free.

      Flambe time!

    • Re:Remember kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EiZei ( 848645 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @02:46AM (#14024365)
      It's not really about free speech here. It's just the chinese goverment protecting it's profits.

      Well.. guess that's why the corporations seem to get so well along with these guys.
      • It's not really about free speech here. It's just the chinese goverment protecting it's profits.

        Well.. guess that's why the corporations seem to get so well along with these guys.

        At this rate, Communist China is going to be one of the most devoutly Capitalist countries in no time. And here I thought the term "Communism" couldn't become more corrupted, being applied for decades (hell, nearly a century now) to corrupt oppresive regimes serving only themselves with no regard for any of the humanistic pri
      • Actually that may be only partially true. The Chinese governemnet still does wiretaps on phones and they probably see VOIP as a threat to that.
      • Which is more than can be said for Prince Charles [scotsman.com]...
      • It's not really about free speech here. It's just the chinese goverment protecting it's profits. Well.. guess that's why the corporations seem to get so well along with these guys.

        It's also why no one is calling for regime change. It's the old McDonalds Piece Formula [google.com], i.e. no two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war. It's not about free speach and rights; it's all about the Benjamins.

      • It's not really about free speech here. It's just the chinese goverment protecting it's profits.
        Huh? Profit is the most obvious motive for supressing free speech I can imagine.

        That's the whole idea of property - you forfeit your freedom to take and use things whenever you want, but gain the right of control over things assigned to you.

      • Re:Remember kids... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fbg111 ( 529550 )
        It's not really about free speech here. It's just the chinese goverment protecting it's profits.

        Of course it's about free speech, Skype is a point-to-point communication service that encrypts all data [skype.com], from both voice and chat. Do you really think the Chinese Communists are going to allow a communication service which they can't eavesdrop at will on? The whole "protecting China Telecom's profits" argument may be another reason for doing this, but rest assured the real reason is the Chicom's continued o
        • You do not really need to decrypt things, you just have to get your favorite trojan to install some software to either send you the session keys or just the decrypted audio/chat data.

          Modern computers add a whole lot of possibilities to communicate securel, but few peopel know how to operate things in such a way as to not open up many more new opertunities for would be evesdroppers to follow your communications.

  • *sigh* well tell me SBC wouldn't love it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by saikou ( 211301 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:17AM (#14024180) Homepage
    If these filters really work, wouldn't US carriers love to have them? Especially if there will be no enforcement of carrier neutrality? You get to use your network AND block activities that reduce your revenue in other wings of the business...

    • Re:*sigh* well tell me SBC wouldn't love it? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MoralHazard ( 447833 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:37AM (#14024233)
      True, it is possible to evade most filtering systems. The basic proof-of-concept is an encrypted tunneling protocol, like OpenVPN, that can pass arbitrary IP traffic via UDP or TCP. You have to set up a remote server, outside of the filtered jurisdiction, to act as your gateway out, but it's not really that hard. It's similar to the idea of open proxies to get around the Great Firewall for web content, but it lets any layer 3 traffic pass (not just HTTP). In fact, OpenVPN even has a nifty method for encapsulating layer 2 (ethernet) inside of an encrypted UDP or TCP tunnel, so you can use non-routable protocols.

      But most of these methods aren't commonly known to ordinary users, and they require some technical sophistication to set up. Then, you have the logistical difficulties of maintaining the remote servers and shuffling them around to avoid IP bans. A lone, tech savvy user can use these method for personal communications, or perhaps even support a small group of people, but stealing fire for the whole human race would require an active organization to keep things humming. At that point, you start to become a nice, fat target for the government to crack down on.

      That's the problem with subversive activities: organizational capacity scales with org size, but so do the risks of operating.

      • Re:*sigh* well tell me SBC wouldn't love it? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @03:01AM (#14024401)
        Say that again: encryption. China.

        Of course, using encrypted protocols is not only filtered (if it can be spotted), but also severely punished. I'm not talking about just a fine here -- you would be facing a prison term, or, if you try to start a group that spreads this knowledge, even a death penalty.

        In Poland, in the 50s, my grandfather's bro was taken to a police station and this was the last time we heard of him -- all because he unknowingly walked near a place where an illegal printer was. China is about on this level now.
        Believe me or not, but totalitarian states worse than the US still do exist.
        • How the hell is the U.S.A totalitarian? WTF kind of crack are you smoking? There is no comparison.

          Freedom of press
          Freedom of speech
          Freedom of movement
          Freedom of association
          Need I go on? China has none of this.
          • Hold your horses, note what I said: "Believe me or not, but totalitarian states worse than the US still do exist.". I agree with you 100%, perhaps I just should have made the sarcasm in my last line more clear.

            The US is near the top freedom-wise, even if we include the corporationism or the Patriot Act. And unlike most /.ers, I notice the flaws in places like Canada -- they have a lot of communistic concepts like state "free" medical care.
            We do have "free" medical care in Poland, too. This means, with mo
            • United Kingdom? Heckle and be detained under anti-terrorism laws
              United States of America? 3 years detention without trial, and counting
              (I don't seriously put these two countries on a par with China or North Korea, but they are going backwards, not forwards)

              I also love the way that you assume that one example of bad Government healthcare (and I'm not claiming that it's the only example) proves that all such institutions are useless.
              • Yeah, they are going backwards, unfortunately, but are still among the few top most free countries. This can change if the anti-terror laws are not stopped, but save for this recent trend, the US is/was doing pretty well.

                Whatever is going on with the Patriot Act, you can still criticize the ruling party. This is not the case in the likes of Canada or Poland. Recently, our beloved prime minister abused a law hole trying to disband the whole commission which was supposed to investigate his relations with a
                • I do support the notion that certain basic services like healthcare should be provided by the state. But my comment was aimed more at your apparent suggestion that a single instance of a failed implementation demonstrates that the idea is broken.

                  The market economy works well for many things (not that I feel it's perfect, it's just the best set of compromises that I think we've found at the moment). But tell me, where do children whose parents have died fit into a system based purely on such principles?
                • For your praise of state-owned institutions: yes, I do claim that all such institutions are useless.

                  This would explain why the government-run millitary has been unable to defend our country and why the internet has failed to prosper.

                  In a competitive free market, private businesses will always outperform state run institutions, sure. Not all markets involve competition, though. Some markets don't even exist. And some businesses, like the state lottery, don't really require any innovation. Furthermore, the sc
          • The matter isn't quite so cut and dried. There are free presses in China but the government has firm control over the mass media. You can criticize the government, but you have to be POLITE. The problem is more that laws are weak and families are strong. If you piss off a powerful family, they can retaliate against you. This isn't totalitarianism per se, though it has most of the negatives of totalitariansm. It's more anarchic or oligarchic than, say, Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy. Of course those seen
      • You can use ssh to make a tunnel with the -D option. Any application that supports SOCKS (or can be sockified) can then use the tunnel almost transparently.

    • If these filters really work, wouldn't US carriers love to have them?

      That's like saying McDonald's would love to save money by taking the beef out of their burgers. It might be true but it doesn't work that way. On top of customer outrage there's the issue of FCC fines [internetnews.com]. Besides, the telecoms have already made up their minds [networkingpipeline.com]:

      MCI executive and Internet co-founder Vint Cerf agreed, saying it was bad for everyone if service providers suddenly started discriminating against traffic types by competitive pa

  • China - 1000000000
    Skype - 0

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:21AM (#14024192)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Information free? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 00000101 ( 742197 )
      Depends on the type of information.

      The Chinese government doesn't really worry about software piracy because it doesn't challenge the status quo. If information comes in the form of free and unmonitored telecommunication, it creates potential outlets for dissidents to speak out.
      The idea of a social revolution facilitated by technology makes governments such as this really uneasy.
    • "It's perfectly OK for everyone in China to blatantly pirate information, but all hell breaks loose when you try and make a VoIP phone call overseas from there."

      the government of china talk about how hard it would be to stop piracy there, but they don't seem so daunted by the task of completly surpressing and controling information flow and revenue hurting practices....

    • It's perfectly OK for everyone in China to blatantly pirate information

      Pirate? China is communist. Everything belongs to the people. Unless it belongs to one of the mandarins in Beijing. Then you'd best keep your grubby little peasant mits off it!

  • Telecom New Zealand will be watching closely. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They currently earn NZ$900m profit per year out of a total NZ population base of approximately 4 million people, so any method to 'enhance shareholder value' (ie screw everybody else) is eagerly investigated. They plan(ned) to cripple VoIP via interleaving methods.

  • This never works (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZachPruckowski ( 918562 ) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:23AM (#14024200)
    Blocking VoIP is hopeless. If they try to block computer to international phones, then Skype can set up servers in the US that take the computer to computer call and re-route it here, making a computer to computer call from China to the US indistingushable from a computer to US phone call. If they try to block all Skype calls, then Skype can just change its software enough to make it unrecognizable to the filter. If everyone just goes online and downloads the new version every week...

    Basically, the Internet by definition is a lot harder to regulate than any other communication medium.
    • Blocking VoIP is hopeless...

      Of course, the people at Verso do not care about this. As long as there is a sucker willing to pay for them for trying.
    • > ... then Skype can set up servers in the US that take the computer to computer call and re-route it here, making a computer to computer call from China to the US indistingushable from a computer to US phone call.

      That's exactly what they want. Skype calls that are routed in china don't bring in as much funds as calls being routed in the US (or any other country, for that matter).
    • If everyone just goes online and downloads the new version every week...

      Then they'll be able to make calls for as long as it takes the Verso guys to download the new version and update their blocking software. Alternatively, if they get really clever, they may be able to block it based on general characteristics rather than anything specific, and so maintain the block across changes.

      Besides which, if there are too many version changes, soon enough the install base will become fragmented enough that it's nex
    • This is China we're talking about. People have gotten a bullet behind the ear for relatively innocuous (to us) offenses. I'm not so sure I'd be the one to be playing that kind of cat and mouse game when the potential penalty could be something a lot more serious that the fine or frivolous lawsuit that someone in the west might face in similar circumstances.

      I travel to China several times a year for business and frequently use Skype because it is vastly cheaper to make calls not only overseas, but to pl

  • It seems a common theme.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ztransform ( 929641 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:25AM (#14024208)
    .. of a lot of slashdot posts is the way laws are used for profit and self-gain as opposed to development and sustainability of the people in general. Which is sad.

    A lot of us became techies or engineers or what-not in the interests of making the world a better place for all. And we are constantly thwarted and bombarded by people with "business" or "political" sense.. (ie people with almost purely selfish and short-sighted motivations).

    Will the power balance ever change.. is it possible for someone with a motivation to assist society in general to make it into a powerful position?

    • Re:It seems a common theme.. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Will the power balance ever change.. is it possible for someone with a motivation to assist society in general to make it into a powerful position?

      Yes. It's happened many times. And in pretty much every case, the results have been disastrous and bloody beyond all imagination.

      May the gods protect us from those who would "assist society".
    • If I'm not mistaken, the entire point of China's communist viewpoint on this matter is to help society. They're not (purportedly) trying to be selfish; they're trying to keep money from Chinese people IN China, to do things like build roads, fund hospitals, and in general get things done for the Chinese people; if the money goes to Skype, the American corporate world uses it to fund American goals
    • Will the power balance ever change.. is it possible for someone with a motivation to assist society in general to make it into a powerful position?

      No. That kind of person doesn't have the skills required to get into that position in the first place. You need to be cut-throat to get ahead in politics and business, otherwise someone who is more cut-throat than you will take your place.

  • The State's version of the ??AA (Score:5, Informative)

    by thecampbeln ( 457432 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:26AM (#14024211) Homepage
    ("State" as in government, not the US of A "states")

    There is a Central American country that also has made VoIP illegal because of their interest in the state run/owned TelCo. I'm not certain if they have implemented anything other then laws around its use in country, but China is not the first to do this.

    I wanna say the country is Panama, but I'm really not sure. Based on http://www.google.com.au/search?q=panama+voip+ille gal&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls =org.mozilla:en-US:official [slashdot.org]">Google it seems it's Costa Rica, but my point is there are probably a handful of countries doing this already. This by no means makes it ok, of course!

    • Damnit... Google [google.com.au].

      Serves me right for using fucking Word to spell check the post (why does it insist on using funky characters for " and '?)

      Oh, and "[A-Z]{2}AA" is slightly more correct! (Stupid growing up in DOS with its shitty wildcard characters)

    • You know, you only need to use http://google.com/search?q=panama+voip+illegal [google.com] for linking to Google searches.

    • There is a Central American country that also has made VoIP illegal because of their interest in the state run/owned TelCo.

      This is, of course, one big reason why state-run industry is bad for progress: it has an interest in squashing competition, and it has the force of law backing it to this end. In theory, a judiciary can protect the rights of the private sector, but how many nations have the constitution to prevent its legislature from taking such actions?

      Of course, as we here assembled see every day, a
    • There was a fairly recent article in the IEEE Spectrum about this. Saudi Arabia guarantees its state-owned phone company a profit, based on user fees. VoIP interferes with this, so they've contracted with some California company that writes so-called deep packet filtering software to block VoIP entirely on the networks that the Saudi government can get to. This was discussed in an earlier slashdot thread [slashdot.org]. Apparently they actually just look at information in the headers, so it should be fairly easy to ev

  • it is unfortunate. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GenKreton ( 884088 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:48AM (#14024256) Journal
    For every glimmer of hope [slashdot.org] there seems to be a million more setbacks.

    I only wish there was something I could do to stop companies doing this, but the nature of a free market doesn't allow for intervention really..
    • The nature of a free market does allow for intervention. However, the way I'd choose to intervene would get me immediately picked up by the DHS for using an EMP to take out half of Microsoft and any other company that sorely needs and EMP shoved square up their ass.
      • ...any other company that sorely needs and EMP shoved square up their ass.
        Sony and Monsanto spring to mind...

        But back on-topic, luckily, I live in Atlanta. I could actually march into their headquarters and complain in person. : )

  • China is a dicotomy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:56AM (#14024270) Journal
    One the one hand, they have become a fairly rich country similar to where America was in 1940's-50s. They also believe that they belong in the international trading world. Cool. But, here they are blocking a service because it may (most likely will) compete with their established companies. So, even though they are one of the few countries with large positive growth (8-12% annual), and yet, they block on one of the few competitive groups. Total BS.
    • Q: Why is everyone so obsessed about China?

      A: China is the ultimate paradox. On the one hand they have become a fairly rich country similar to where America was in 1940's-50s. They also believe that they belong in the international trading world. But on the other hand, they are blocking a service because it may (most likely will) compete with their established companies.

      Q: I heard that China is always cruel or mean. What's their problem?

      A: Whoever told you that is a total liar. Just like other countries,

  • Sanction the $%^&*'s (Score:3, Insightful)

    by exaviger ( 928938 ) <nathantal@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Monday November 14, 2005 @01:56AM (#14024272)
    Back in the "days" when you didnt like the policy of a country, that country would get sanctioned.

    I think countries should get "sanctioned" for censorship and abuse over the internet. The internet is ment to be the saviour, the free voice, the alternative.

    If it was in my power I would block all telephone calls from china, if they are scared to lose revenue from skype then they shouldnt get any revenue.

    Yeah, not going to happen and I am dreaming, but this is really a shocker. I live in South Africa where the cost of telecommunication is the highest in the world.
    It is cheaper for me to fly to hong-kong and download 100gigs then it is to download from south africa (And faster I may add). We had all VOIP illegal until 2 years ago. Now we can use VOIP freely but with only 1 telecommunication provider in our country there revenue model is simply moving from phone charges to data charges.

    But yeah, blocking skype out is ridiculous!

  • cat and mouse (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Douglas Simmons ( 628988 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @02:09AM (#14024294) Homepage
    There's got to be a simple change to the Skype protocol that will make it hard to detect and block. Randomizing ports, for example. If The Man can sniff out what Skype traffic looks like, encrypt it or create some mechanism that would generate random number "noise" to throw off the detection. That's about all I can come up with. Other than politics and laws, what methods could Skype do to make it difficult to be controlled?
    • The trouble is not that they do port blocking, the trouble probably is that they attack Skype at its core. The one thing Skype does do is when you want to sign on to authenticate you with their central server (Teledenmark?). So blocking this authentication is probably the way to go for these guys. On top of this they might block SkypeOut servers located at various data centers around the world, by just k-lining those IP-adresses. I read two papers on how Skype works and it does seem that it uses some easie

  • Supporting opression for a buck (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guanxi ( 216397 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @02:15AM (#14024305)
    What's the difference between companies like Verso, Yahoo, Cisco and Google which help the Chinese Communists oppress people, and the oil companies, industrial giants, and weapons manufacturers that have supported tyrants in exhange for access to their markets?

    How many innocent people are in jail, or worse, because of their help? How much more free would the Chinese people be, and how much weaker would the Communist grip on power be, if it wasn't for the assistance of these tech companies? "Don't be evil"? -- How impressive and bold that they support free software, but not freedom (as in speech) for human beings.

    It's easy for me to say; I don't have to take the risk. These companies certainly have a difficult dilemma and have other responsibilities to shareholders and employees. In their position, everyone wants to say, 'I just want to keep my head down and mind my own business'. Taking sides is a risky, costly, sometimes wasted (if Cisco doesn't provide firewalls, someone else will) and often unappreciated sacrifice.

    But I think that with their power comes responsibility, and their freedom is due to the sacrifices of those who came before them. I would think Jerry Yang (Yahoo founder, born in Taiwan) and Sergey Brin (Google founder, born under Communist rule in the then USSR) would be especially sensitive to this issue.

    (In fairness, I only have heard second hand what Google, Yahoo and Cicso do in China. Verso seems to proudly advertise their support for the Chinese Communists. And this publicity is probably helping their share price.)
    • Coorporations aren't moral, nor are they immoral. (which is to say, NOT moral)

      Coorpoations are amoral where the moral situation is irrelevant to the financial one. A company exists to make money. The shareholders invested money so that the company would make a return. If the company fails, the shareholders get pissed, and that often spells disaster for the company.

      Many people say it's immoral to eat meat, and yet many people do. To a person, animal flesh is food. To a corporation, money is food, and like pe
      • To a person, animal flesh is food. To a corporation, money is food, and like people, a corporation will do just about anything to ensure a consisten supply of food (money).

        I have to say that's about the best summing up of the reason behind corporate evildoing I've heard. They don't just want to make one big ton of money (Microsoft) and be happy with that - they must keep on getting more, always, for eternity. Food to humans is a good analogy. I'll have to write it down somewhere.
      • I agree to an extent, but to an extent that is an easy way for people to absolve themselves of responsibility. Corporations do support communities, and will not do "evil" under the public eye.

        Corporations are run by humans. Come to think of it -- and I'm just going off the cuff here -- I was encouraged to incorporate my business, thus forming a fictional entitity that can act in its own name, in order to protect myself from financial liability. The corporation owes the money, injures the employee, fails
    • What's the difference between companies like Verso, Yahoo, Cisco and Google which help the Chinese Communists oppress people, and the oil companies, industrial giants, and weapons manufacturers that have supported tyrants in exhange for access to their markets?

      Well, the oil companies and industrial giants are amoral in that they ignore the oppression when there's a buck to be made.

      Verso, Yahoo, Cisco and Google are immoral because they are directly contributing to the oppression.

      In other words, the new-styl
      • > Well, the oil companies and industrial giants are amoral in that they
        > ignore the oppression when there's a buck to be made.

        That's a bit too simple. Oil companies maybe don't support oppression as a policy, but they do support the regimes there by paying taxes or bribes. Besides that, they often pollute the environment, using toxid chemicals, and letting local people work under unacceptable circumstances (unsafe and unhealthy). This is as well oppression, as it keeps those people where they are: poo
      • *Ignore*? Holy fuck, Shell Oil hired mercenaries in helicopters to shoot down villagers on the ground after they protested against uncompensated seizure of land in Nigeria. Death is not good enough for these fuckers. Hell won't take them.

  • Nuanced? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheLoneCabbage ( 323135 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @02:42AM (#14024359) Homepage
    How exactly is developing a superior product that challenges an existing company nuanced?

    Sounds like the same old story we've been seing since the start of the WWW. Disruptive technology enters, large comfortable companies start bribeing gov't officials to protect their jobs.

    Nuanced... yet another over used word, that should be shot, burried, and layed to rest next to the Macaraena and "Thousand Points of Light".

  • Thank God (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kawahee ( 901497 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @03:00AM (#14024397) Homepage Journal
    Thank God for Freedom of Spe-
    *beating noises*
  • Funny how on the one hand we can get into wars "to bring democracy to the mid-East," yet at the same time actively support China in laying the beat-down on its citizens yet again. Why the hell is the government allowing companies to do this sort of business?! Let's try to have some sort of morals, hey?

    • Re:Spreading Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @04:21AM (#14024545) Homepage Journal
      Because China has an army roughly the size of the population of the USA, nuclear weapons and trade deficit IOUs for approximately the GDP of the USA for the next 3000 years. Also they don't have much oil since all the dinosaurs in the country were eaten by giant flesh eating pandas.

      This all adds up to the fact that China can do whatever it wants to do and the US Government won't say a thing. And US companies will do whatever makes them money unless the US Government legislates, which they won't do. See point 1.

    • Funny how people can scream and holler about the US involving themselves in the internal affairs of other countries and then pitch a hissy fit because we don't invade China.

      The only difference is that liberals only get their panties in a knot when a country oppresses its own people. Except when it's Cuba, or the Soviet Union, or Afghanistan, or North Korea, or Iran. Organizing a world-wide economic attack on apartheid South Africa was ok, but sanctions against Iraq that included exceptions for civilian
    • > some sort of morals

      I'm not sure that's a good idea. Total amorality might be better than a facade of moral
      sophistry used to defend and justify crimes against humanity, massacres, torture, rapine
      and pillage, treason, war crimes, and wholesale corruption.

  • Yet, you all accept filtering already... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 14, 2005 @05:23AM (#14024736)
    Right now, if you are a broadband subscriber, most likely your provider already filters stuff like inbound SMTP, partial outbound SMTP traffic and the like. And you all accept it. And almost all ISP's do it, so you are almost left no choice. Or did you base your provider decision on its filtering policy? If you permit SMTP filtering, then your ISP can choose to filter anything they want later. The choice to allow SMTP filtering on your ISP is the choice to not pay for complete IP connectivity, but for a crippled and filtered one.

    The only difference with Skype in China is, that the filtering entity is the government and people do not have a choice to switch the carrier. But then, do you have the choice?

    That said, right now Skype still works well and I call daily to Shanghai, as well as using SkypeOut to China, but who knows how long it will remain so...
  • 1) Start a company in a country founded on the principles of freedom of speech.

    2) Develop technology to block legitimate use of software.

    3) Sell to a government eager to control its people, using the vague pretense of trying to protect a different company's interests to legitimise the transaction. It helps if you ignore item 1) here.

    4) Profit!

  • Quite intresting about china and our workplaces. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rodong ( 906804 ) on Monday November 14, 2005 @07:13AM (#14025027)
    What i find really intresting is that every now and then China is mentioned on ./, often followed by a massive amount of "OMG they are suppressing freedom of speech and silencing people", people are really bothered by Chinas oppressive behaviour, and quite frankly for a good reason. But compare it to the our workplaces, i mean, many workplaces has a communication policy, and in many cases it's just as suppressive and undemocratic as Chinas behaviour with the exception that we dont get jailed. Then there's this "if you dont like it, get a new job" thing, which is supposed to indicate freedom of choice, but if you've got kids and bills to pay, thats not a choice. So many of us are effectivly only having at best 2/3 of a democratic and free day, the remaining 1/3 of the day (if not more, due to overtime), is spent in a corporate dictatorship. Dont believe me? try questioning things at work, you'll soon see where the invisible glass walls are. Whats even worse is that it's cutting into companies profits, how many times have YOU thought about a procedure, a routine or some way things work, and thought up a better way to do it, more efficient, and just kept that to yourself because you didn't wanna pee in a hornets nest?
  • ..is that the former don't issue press releases.

    "Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of i
  • When subverting the government of China, you're a freedom loving hero.

    When subverting the government of any other country around the world, you're a jingoistic, imperialist, racist conqueror.

    I love the intellectual dishonesty.
  • This is just plain dumb. How long do they think it will be before the VOIP/P2P/Other apps just encapsulate everything in SSL and shunt it over port 443?

  • I used to work at a school, and we had to filter. Moreover, we had to spend money on it, so no DansGuardian on Squid. Verso's Netspective looked interesting, it would block p2p services by spoofing an RST packet. It would spoof an "image blocked" jpg, png, gif, etc. based on the ability to beat the internet's traffic back to the site.
  • How do the employees of these companies sleep at night? Helping a government repress its people. I guess the pillows stuffed with fluffy dollars probably help.
  • And the award for Most Confusing Slashdot Article Subject goes to....
  • But despair not: "tries" is what you're looking for. Or if you were going for a brief, elliptical headline:
    "Your Rights Online: Verso Trials, Skype-Blocking in China."
    That is the most likely reading of the subject line as written, but, on further reading, it seems this wasn't intended.

    "English -- It's O.K.!"

    (And it prevents one from sounding like a hollow suit.)

    Sorry, I'm an incorrigible romantic.
  • I called China via skype a year or two ago. The quality was horrid. I couldn't even hear the other person.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close