China Bans Running Your Own Email Server 304
Erwin_D writes "Under the guise of banning spam, China has ruled that running your own e-mail server has been banned, unless you have a license. To qualify for such a license, an 'e-mail service provider' must abide by some chilling rules: all e-mail must be stored for two months, and e-mail with discussing vaguely defined subject as network security or information security may not be transmitted. While the rules contains all the good measures we would all like to see to combat spam, such as prohibiting open relays and outlawing zombie network, the law is also geared toward controlling free speech. From the article: 'I believe that the intent to have an antispam regulation was a good one ... Unfortunately, it seems like during the policy formulation process, it got hijacked and went to one extreme.'"
That's the way it is... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:2)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:2)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think what happened at Tiananman Square was a tragedy, but now imagine what would happen if you were to stop a US tank.. Even cops could shoot you if you didn't "freeze" right away.
Well, I guess I'm not so jaded yet that I think the US military would actually run over a single unarmed man after all the craziness had mostly died down.
I'd say that tank man was a troll while the camera man was just waiting to catch the pictures.
That's really hard to believe. The camera man was a western journalist filming i
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Interesting)
informative? (Score:2)
"That's how it is"
What kind of contribution is that? It doesn't even make sense, requiring a license for an email server is how it is?
It is a stupid law that does nothing to help free speech, but its most definately not "the way it is"
"The way it is" is that those internet users mostly play video games and read up on entertainment, just like their valiant counterparts in the West. The way it is is a few dissidents trying to get informa
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:2)
Re:That's the way it is... (Score:3, Informative)
No, I didn't vote for him.
So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you consider "news" as a revenue source, then "yes", the "surprisier" the better.
If you consider news to be news, then they do not have to.
Re:So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:2)
Re:So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yell at them for their policy all you want, but get out of the cold war era and blame them correctly. I will use one of my favorite quotes from an American president:
"How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."
Laugh or cry? (Score:3, Informative)
Let's take Marx - he lived in an era where belonging to the working class meant that you were desperately poor, and where the middle and upper classes believed that different classes were almost different species; rich
Marx and Business (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary theme of Das Kapital was the various ways in which the market undermines itself. A large number of business books have picked up on this theme and essentially teach business leaders that their goal is to undermine the market (or bust). In the dotcom market, you saw a large number of dotbombs play this game. To dominate the ma
Re:So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, since China nowadays allows foreign privately owned corporations to operate in the country, it is a modern globalized capitalist dictatorship. Not that there's much difference to the poor bastards having to live under their evil overlords.
Re:So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:3, Informative)
since China nowadays allows foreign privately owned corporations to operate in the country, it is a modern globalized capitalist dictatorship
That just makes it a fascist dictatorship!
Re:So China is still a communist dictatorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
China =is= a communist dictatorship. And I could care less about the communism, keyword is
This isn't a troll, it just happens to be true.
The only real difference here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe somebody could clarify US and UK law for me.
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:5, Insightful)
generally: people tend to be more critical when other ("worse") countries do things.
China: now store email for 2 months
USA: (see next-but-one story) already store email for 2 months but now making it indefinite
China: no emails about bypassing security
USA: no talk of bypassing security in any form
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:2, Insightful)
if China didn't have driving licenses or passports and introduced them tomorrow, the headline on
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:3, Informative)
I've only seen ISP's keep short term backups. ie, mail server storage method completely dies and then backups are restored. I'm not wholly sure how long the rest of the industry keeps these, but I never kept them past a few weeks.
Mail logs are generally kept for much longer...
Now, I think you are refering to the regulations that were pending/passed/speculated regarding business mail for large companies. This is taken from the company rather then the ISP. I believe there were some regula
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:3, Insightful)
>
> Maybe somebody could clarify US and UK law for me.
UK: Alpha test site. It's a "Voluntary Code of Practice on Data Retention" [wikipedia.org], for values of "voluntary" approaching the sort of stat
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:2)
Ooo! How clever! Almost as wity as "M$"
Re:The only real difference here... (Score:3, Informative)
Don't most ISPs in the western world have similar government imposed retention and intrusion legislation that they have to abide by?
I don't know about other governemnts, but there's certainly no data retention laws for ISPs in the United States. I'm not certain if email has been ruled to be covered by privacy laws, but I'd certainly hope so.
There's some requirements about email for publically traded companies through a new law called Sarbanes-Oxley. Even that I'm not sure if there's specific requirements
Still no difference. (Score:3, Informative)
For the vast majority of US households lucky enough to have better than dial up, the ISP forbids running "servers" of any kind. So there's no difference on that front except the penalties. In China, you will be put under then jail and your organs sold to the highest bidder for running anything like a press. In the US, right now, you will simply lose your connection to the network.
And... (Score:3, Informative)
Translation please (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Translation please (Score:2, Informative)
That got really butcherded in the editing room, I guess... I wrote:
what's next? (Score:2)
before we know it, they would start banning sending snail mail, sending faxes, using phones - all in the name of quality control and eliminating spam.
Sensationalizing at its best (Score:5, Interesting)
"China's new rules also prohibit use of email to discuss certain vaguely defined subjects related to 'network security' and ' information security', "
From the regulation [isc.org.cn] that the article links to
taking advantage of emails to engage in activities which are detrimental to network and information security is strictly prohibited in accordance with related laws.
There is a big difference between "engaging in activities that are detrimental to information security" and "discussing information security"
But with a title like "China Outlaws Outlook" are you really surprised that they are sensationalizing it.
Re:Sensationalizing at its best (Score:2)
Human rights aside, I would like for my spam filter to get a break from processing Chinese mail.
I would not be upset if no email ever left China, and I work with some Chinese people who currently live in China. I'm welcome for them to get an out of country email service or proxy to communicate with me, but the signal to noise ratio from China is pretty low. Heck, all of these users have an American account with incoming ssh access and outgoing mail capabilities.
So, in summary anything limiting outgoing Ch
spam is free speech (Score:2)
Free speech is an even more powerful concept. This means that everyone has the right to express themselves. EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEY STILL HAVE THE RIGHT. Spam is a great example defining whose responsibility is it to determine what you hear? Email addresses are effectively public domain - like standing out in public. It's the inbox owner
Re:spam is free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:spam is free speech (Score:2)
I agree that people who use email for DNS attacks or other annoying and disruptive actions are not ones I would support.
But there are 2 problems with your statement above. The "disguise their messages" is vague. Who says someone can't choose to communicate any way they want? No one agreed to the rules you expect for proper english, well formed headers, or proper server syntax. Expressing yourself the way you choose is the c
Re:spam is free speech (Score:2)
I don't know where you got this definition of spam, but I've never heard anyone until now claim that as a definition. Spam has always been mass mailing of unsolicited email, not
asking one person a question.
Do the rules change if I send 10,000? If so, this is not consistent with the core of free speech.
How is that not consistent? If I g
Re:spam is free speech (Score:2)
Spammers, when they "disguise their messages", they don't do it as a form of expression, they do it to circumvent spam filters. It's as if that guy in the street starts to follow me and speak louder so that the earplugs become ineffective. That's harrasment and IIRC, it's illegal.
As for the definition of spammer [google.com], first one (emphasis mine):
Re:spam is free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Spam isn't a free speech issue. Spam forces the burden of the cost onto the receiver, rather than the sender. It is exactly analagous to junk faxes, which cost very little to send but a great deal to receive.
Marketers are welcome to send emails to those people that have given their permission. Spamme
Re:spam is free speech (Score:2)
You have a choice to accept email or faxes. Those costs are ones you choose to accept by connecting to the system. Should we limit free speech to make it more convenient for people? Darn inconvenient when lots of people want to talk and they say things we don't like. Maybe the US should limit assembly too -- to make it more convenient fo
Re:spam is free speech (Score:2)
Great, I'll be spray painting advertisements on the side of your car this evening. That's the price you choose to accept by parking it on the street.
I also accept postal mail. That does not mean that marketers are welcome to send me their advertisements postage due, much as spam does. I also accept telephone calls. That d
Re:spam is free speech (Score:5, Insightful)
That's stupid and dangerous. You've clearly never run a mail server of any real size. There is a very real and quantifiable cost to spam filtering. For an organization of any significant size (we're talking at least tens of thousands of email addresses), spam and virus filtering needs its own infrastructure. A lot of companies outsource to someone (e.g. Postini). That costs thousands (I know this, I am not talking out of my ass) of dollars every month. Even if the infrastructure is kept in-house, there is a significant up-front investment in hardware, plus the cost of staff to administer the spam/virus filtering infrastructre (if the org is big enough, this could be close to a full-time job). Not to mention the extra bandwidth costs when four spammers do a simultaneous distributed spam run, etc. etc.
It's not enough to allow the "mailbox owner" (a term that dodges the fact that corporate email is owned by the corporation) to decide whether or not they want to use spam filtering. First of all, most end-users have no idea how to make it happen, second, the company has to pay for the disk to store the shit that users never clean out.
Spam is not first-amendment-protected speech. If someone is standing on a soapbox yammering about their religion or hawking viagra or whatever, I can choose not to listen, and it doesn't cost me anything either way. Spam, on the other hand, does cost businesses a lot of money, and it costs the spammer virtually nothing. If spammers had to pay per recipient the way direct (postal) mailing marketers do, spam wouldn't be a problem.
It's 2006. Why are we having this conversation? This was all debated and decided in the late 90s. Did you miss the memo?
Re:spam is free speech (Score:2, Interesting)
It travels from a privately owned computer, over privately owned wire to my privately owned ISP which I then download from onto my privately owned computer. Where exactly does the email ever enter a public forum hence making it protected?
People can easily see my address from the street... does this give them the right to drop their
Americans often forget... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Americans often forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Americans often forget... (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely correct. We have NO right to tell them how to run their country.
Then again, if they're doing something we find egregious or offensive, we're under no obligation to simply accept it, either. We can (and should) be using our wallets to express our unhappiness with Chinese policies like forced abortion, Tiananmen Square, forced repatriation of North Korean refugees [google.com], pirating of movies/CDs/whatever ("Redberry"? Come ON!), and so on. Why the hell we keep selling them technology that they'll just turn
There's such a thing called Human Rights. (Score:2)
Right yes, western approval no (Score:2)
That China is a sovereign country with its own set of rules & customs. It has the right to determine it's own destiny without need of approval from the West.
Not a great defense of systematic oppression. You speak of the Maoists and the citizens they oppress as one unit. They are not. The Maoists dream of taking their place with other western nations in economic achievement and world influence. They wish to imitiate the material success of these societies while ignoring the values that achieved them.
Re:Americans often forget... (Score:2)
By the way, why do you place national self-determination above individual freedom when the two are in conflict?
Re:Americans often forget... (Score:2)
Come again? (Score:3, Funny)
What you say? China set us up the bomb?
Seriously though, is this a big surprise. No doubt it's a sad day for liberty in China, but with the Chicoms' history when it comes to the Internet, we had to see stuff like this coming.
"Hijacked" (Score:2)
Nothing new here...move along... (Score:4, Insightful)
Atleast they know they're being monitored... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Atleast they know they're being monitored... (Score:2)
Doesnt come red flag linux (Score:2)
Kinda funny how the state's endorsed products violates its own laws
Re:Doesnt come red flag linux (Score:2)
>e-mail with discussing vaguely defined subject as network security or information security may not be transmitted
to which you reply:
>Doesnt come red flag linux with a mailserver by default like most distros?
aaaarrrrggghhh!!!!!
have given up all with completely sensible grammar with you?
and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2, Informative)
Because *THEY* keep financing *YOU*.
Anyone know how many US government T-bills and other securities are held in China?
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2, Informative)
China and Japan have stopped buying US debt. [gold-eagle.com]
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2)
From the linked article:
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2)
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2)
If they asked for their money back, would that plunge the U.S. into a deep depression?
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2)
From the first reference [usatoday.com] I could find. Note that it is dated back in "8/27/2005". A more recent estimate on US debt can be found on the US National Debt Clock [brillig.com]
Other nations actually purchase that debt, in the form of U.S. Treasury bonds and notes. Those bonds have increasingly been snapped up not just by private investors but by foreign banks. Japanese investors hold the most U.S. debt, but China has been buying more than any other country in recent months.
The biggest tra
simple (Score:2)
I suppose I just have too much faith in the internet and freedom. The weirdest thing is how insignificant this law is. First we can compare it to more effective regulations on internet communicat
Re:and yet we still buy "Made in China" (Score:2)
This is tragically very true.
I heard about this situation where the Asian market would drop goods for under the price of production, rendering the local industry unable to compete and destroying them. To eventually gaining the loss back with the newly created monopoly on the market. The EU has actually put in trade-laws to protect local industries to protect the local market. If people would care, there wouldn't be a need for such tradelaws.
Outlook Server? (Score:2)
On topic, I think this is horrible. What about internal-only email servers? Are those legal? Could that be enforced? Could you be prosecuted for being infected with a piece of SMTP-spewing malware?
hijacked? (Score:3, Funny)
2 points for them trying to combat spam.
Instant messaging? (Score:2)
Adoption of gpg? (Score:2)
Damn rice farmers... (Score:4, Funny)
It's entirely possible that this is
[ ] Incorrect news
[ ] Making the wrong conclusions
[X] Jumping to conclusions
[X] Flamebait
[X] Copying another post, sorry I had to
Personally I look forward to getting back to Canada and out of the USA so I can get the icky feeling off myself.
Because Canada
[ ] Is so much better
[ ] Has less immigrants
[X] Doesn't have Bush
[X] Can tolerate more than one point of view
[ ] A nation which enjoys equal protection under the law
[ ] Has quality politicians
[ ] Has Effective journalism
[X] Has poutine
Tom
Re:Damn rice farmers... (Score:2)
and lost me as soon as I googled poutine.
yech.
Re:Damn rice farmers... (Score:2)
Tom
Wait, Wait! (Score:2)
Creeping freedoms (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this a sign of the increasing freedoms that politicians argue(d) liberalised trade with China would bring about?
Same law in Denmark (Score:3, Interesting)
except here it is part of an "anti-terrorism" law package.
Workaround (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The final solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... In that case, don't you think the cure seems to be worse than the disease? Reminds me of the New Hampshire license plates... "Live Free or Die".
S
Re:The final solution (Score:2)
Re:The final solution (Score:2)
Re:The final solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Right?
Re:The final solution (Score:2)
In fact, this sounds identical to my university's policy, and I know several ISPs do the same. It seems excessive for the govt to do it, but IIRC in china the govt effectively *is* the ISP. In which case this is absolutely normal.
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
End Of Times!!
Re:In other news (Score:3, Insightful)
The more they tighten their grip, the more (email) systems will slip through their fingers.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Like Yahoo, Hotmail and Gmail, whose parent companies have a presence in China and are more than willing to comply with China's censorship regime and turn people in?
If you want free speech in China, you do not use an American company to do it with.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
In communist China, email servers run YOU! Or something like that.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:In other news (Score:2, Interesting)
However if anyone is thinking about using any Webmail for free speech in China all I can say is DON'T.
I don't care what country the webmail provider is in, it is not safe. What you post and what you read will be in clear text to the government.
I would suggest using a pgp encrypted data block embedded in a wav, mp3, or jpg file as a much safer way.
By the way (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about zombies? (Score:2)
Re:Impact to US users with Chinese hosting compani (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Forget Email, use IM! (Score:3, Informative)
If the US Government [unesco.org] can do it, I don't see why the Chinese can't monitor emails, IM, mobile phone calls, etc. I don't think anyone in China can believe that there's a safe medium for communication that the government won't tap.
Re:China takes care of it's pacifists (Score:2)
Wow. People will grasp at any argument, no matter how ridiculous, to keep Americans onside of the China Slave Labour Racket.
Re:China takes care of it's pacifists (Score:2)