Foreign-owned Hotels To Install Firewall In China 114
Frosty Piss writes "Foreign-owned hotels in China face the prospect of 'severe retaliation' if they refuse to install government software that can spy on Internet use by hotel guests coming to watch the summer Olympic games. Republican Senator Sam Brownback produced a translated version of a document from China's Public Security Bureau that requires hotels to use the monitoring equipment. The Public Security Bureau order threatens that failure to comply could result in financial penalties, suspending access to the Internet or the loss of a license to operate a hotel in China. The policy was designed to 'ensure the smooth opening' of the Olympics, as well as 'promote the healthy and orderly development of the Internet, safeguard state security, maintain social order and protect public interests,' the translation of the one of the documents read."
Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
They generate a lot of negative media OUTSIDE of China. It probably doesn't matter much to the Chinese government that foreigners view the administration with disdain, as long as Chinese nationals view the administration with respect and trust. In that sense, the People's Republic of China is very successful, as the vast majority Chinese nationals respect their leaders and believe that their leaders are doing their best to protect and promote the interests of China and its citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that much different than the Bush admin
You're an idiot. The very fact that you can badmouth Bush or call him a chimpanzee and get away with it shows how far we really are from China. Stop fearmongering -- yes, there are issues. Yes, we should be vigilant. But that doesn't also mean we can't be thankful for the freedoms that we do have.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop fearmongering -- yes, there are issues. Yes, we should be vigilant. But that doesn't also mean we can't be thankful for the freedoms that we do have.
And what has being vigilant gotten us?
A) The worst excesses of 1960's wiretapping & spying on citizens (Nixon & COINTELPRO)
B) Politicization of the Justice Department
C) Weakening of Federal regulatory Agencies & environmental protections
D) All of the above.
And those are just the first non-debatable items I could pull off the top of my head. Obviously the USA has free speech & China doesn't, but the USA is heading in China's direction as opposed to a transparent and open Democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the actions of the RIAA and MPAA?
Jeebus almighty! (Score:2)
Oh noes! :( Politicized hiring at the justice department and weakened federal regulatory agencies! And the NSA listened in on some people calling abroad! The US is just like China!
And considering Bush is getting kicked out of office real soon, the US will have to become just like China any day now, or it will be too late! US am doomed! :( :( :(
---This message brought to you by HERPES - the Hyperbole Emergency Response Program Eastern Sweden.----
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially if they can pass off any negative foreign views of China as being an anti-Chinese bias.
Re: (Score:1)
Not true.
I grew up in Hong Kong and have been working in Shanghai for a while.
The first thing the Chinese don't trust are the officials. The media that we all think shitty is CCTV and Xiahua. I can say most educated people (read: those live in city) know and aware that the officials are doing a shitty jobs.
We all think it's bullshit to holding up and postponing all surgeries that requires potential blood transfser, in order to keep the blood for the Olympics' potential incident.
We hate how they erect the gr
Re: (Score:2)
the vast majority Chinese nationals respect their leaders and believe that their leaders are doing their best to protect and promote the interests of China and its citizens.
Do you really think so? That doesn't match the people I knew from my experience after living in China for 2 years. Even the Communist party members that I was friends with had a quite cynical view of the government and its policies.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they do not care what you think. They do not care what your politicians think. As long as they can control the information that their own people have access to, any outside fallout is more than acceptable.
And apparently it works... (Score:2)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't care what you think.
China, like much of the world, is very nationalistic, and it's hard for Americans to understand. Your nationality, ethnicity, language... all the same. They can't seperate a criticism of China the government from a criticism the people.
So the government have the Chinese people happily convinced that China is the greatest ever, there ever was, and all criticism from the outside is basically racism. Calling the government corrupt is as personally offensive to the average Chinese citizen as personally calling him a slant-eyed chink.
So, from the Chinese nationalists perspective, they're doing a good job blocking all that "racist propoganda". It's basically (to them) analagous to many western governments banning "hate speech".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, from the Chinese nationalists perspective, they're doing a good job blocking all that "racist propoganda". It's basically (to them) analagous to many western governments banning "hate speech".
It's not just analogous, it's the same thing. One man's political opinion is another man's hate speech.
Re: (Score:2)
The very internal dissent that China tries to suppress contradicts your idea of a populace satisfied with their government. Corruption is a factor in all governments that China does not deny. In fact, they actively combat it. Besides, I wouldn't call the government corrupt as a whole, just authoritarian and heavy handed.
Clearly the Chinese government does care what outsiders think. Much is revealed both by their attempts to clean up Beijing and to the attempts to keep foreign journalists in the dark abo
Re:China ~ USA (Score:1, Insightful)
Just for a new perspective. Replace in "China/Chinese" with "USA/American" and "Nationalistic" with "patriotic" and read this again. It sounds eerily like the US public debate.
As a foreigner living in the US, it amazes me how much the government officials and the press need to tout the virtues of America being the grates and the best in everything. Even if they are not.
If it is healthcare, education, banking, recycling, solar energy, hydrogen technology, cell phone technology, Internet access and technology
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship doesn't look as bad as massacres.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
It may be different than you think. I have a book called "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-ning Chu that describes the different mindset that Chines (and Japanese and Koreans) start with when conducting their affairs. There is a distinct difference in cultural values, therefore there is a difference in cultural behavior. China's government is constantly in turmoil, and control is very important. Outside influences can undermine that control pretty quickly (and, in fact, has caused much change over the last 20 years).
Basically, the Chinese government doesn't care what we THINK about them as long as we ACT in ways that benefit their goals. The Chinese government is losing a long war against education; the populace is getting to smart and being exposed to too many new ideas. They have loosened up on the Command Economy, and are maintaining a fragile balance of control in other regards. So, IMO, the benefit to them is less turmoil from their own population.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Tienamen Square freedom movement was an embarresment to China. Freedoms for their citizens have been libralized tremendously since the Red Guard era. However the Chinese Communist Party will never allow its citizens to question the governments authority to control information deemed anti-communistis/socialistic (which seems to be a very broad and constantly changing definition). Remember this government came to power by a "peoples revolution" and they do not want a second revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
However in this case the monitoring has absolutely nothing to do with censorship, it is all about espionage.
The monitoring equipment is also going to include key loggers and based upon peoples laziness, using that same user name and password all over the internet will get Chinese government espionage agents into a whole lot of places they should get imprisoned for going to.
You really have to consider the kind of people who will be going to the Olympics as spectators, their income brackets and their pos
Re: (Score:2)
So ... you'll buy hardware which might contain a keylogger and use it in China?
That's more likely to be compromised before you buy it than your own laptop (which I assume you can trust right now) is to be compromised after you use it in China.
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't use a Chinese laptop? (Score:1)
From our perspective, yes, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Cause it's a slave state. Slaves must be fed carefully filtered information, or they might turn on their masters.
It's in principle similar to FOX News and mainstream media in the US, except they spin most of the stuff, while over in China they just pretty much block stuff they don't want known out.
The results achieved are similar though. :)
Re: (Score:1)
Cause it's a slave state.
[citation needed]
Slaves must be fed carefully filtered information, or they might turn on their masters.
Really? Slaves need to be told that their masters have done wrong by enslaving them? I wonder how the slaves in America found out. They were (with few exceptions) illiterate, broadcast radio didn't exist...singing telegram, perhaps?
It's in principle similar to FOX News and mainstream media in the US, except they spin most of the stuff, while over in China they just pretty much block stuff they don't want known out.
The results achieved are similar though. :)
Surely you're joking. The fact that people "know" that FOX does not deliver fair and balanced news is evidence that they (people, not FOX) are aware of the information not being presented by FOX.
Re: (Score:1)
Cause it's a slave state.
[citation needed]
This is my opinion, not Wikipedia. :-)
Slaves must be fed carefully filtered information, or they might turn on their masters.
Really? Slaves need to be told that their masters have done wrong by enslaving them? I wonder how the slaves in America found out. They were (with few exceptions) illiterate, broadcast radio didn't exist...singing telegram, perhaps?
What I meant by slave state is a different kind of servitude than the institution of slavery. I meant it in the sense that the individual is ultimately exists as a tool for the central power, not that a certain subset of humanity is inferior, and therefore must submit to the 'superior' subset.
It's in principle similar to FOX News and mainstream media in the US, except they spin most of the stuff, while over in China they just pretty much block stuff they don't want known out.
The results achieved are similar though. :)
Surely you're joking. The fact that people "know" that FOX does not deliver fair and balanced news is evidence that they (people, not FOX) are aware of the information not being presented by FOX.
Do they? I know, you know. What the _people_ KNOW, most of the time, is what FOX News feeds them.
Re: (Score:1)
What I meant by slave state is a different kind of servitude than the institution of slavery.
Ok. Choose better words next time.
Do they? I know, you know. What the _people_ KNOW, most of the time, is what FOX News feeds them.
Indeed, there is an important difference between "people" and "the people".
While FOX is the network everyone loves to hate, the rest of the media, who you also mentioned, is just as bad. None of them simply report the news, all of them have extensive commentary. I think that part of responsible journalism is keeping them separate. A person who watches a "news" channel and thinks critically about what they are seeing can separate the news from the commentary and make their
Re: (Score:1)
Do they? I know, you know. What the _people_ KNOW, most of the time, is what FOX News feeds them.
Indeed, there is an important difference between "people" and "the people".
While FOX is the network everyone loves to hate, the rest of the media, who you also mentioned, is just as bad. None of them simply report the news, all of them have extensive commentary. I think that part of responsible journalism is keeping them separate. A person who watches a "news" channel and thinks critically about what they are seeing can separate the news from the commentary and make their own judgements about the effects of the day's events, but the average news consumer is passive. Many people latch on to the image of rednecks being brainwashed by FOX, but I'm sure the number of people passively accepting what is peddled by (generally less conservative) other networks is proportional. The people who watch [your least favorite news network here], are doing so by choice and people have an unfortunate tendency to watch things that affirm, rather than challenge their views.
Well, I'll agree with you that FOX isn't the sole brainwasher, I used them as an example of what in my opinion is the worst.
I shudder at the thought of 'responsible journalism'. There's free press and unfree press. Start to broadcast your own news program and see how long you're labeled 'pirate of the airwaves' and gets sent to prison.
Re: (Score:1)
With a firewall like that, they could snag a LOT of porn. I think that's why they do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I've never heard this theory about Three Gorges, and it's interesting to me. A casual google doesn't reveal any supporting information; do you have a link or other citation?
Re: (Score:1)
From Rambo 3 (Score:3, Funny)
Trautman: What do you say John?
Rambo: Fuck 'em.
Of course, the them==Russians but I am getting a bit tired of the BS regarding the Chinese government. Everyone knows money vs ethics = money wins. Of course it is not in the hotel's interests to get fined or have no internet. Bah I hate cliches.
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I was thinking something similar. On the upside, at least in China you KNOW when the government is watching. They aren't that courteous in the U.S..
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I was thinking something similar. On the upside, at least in China you KNOW when the government is watching. They aren't that courteous in the U.S..
I'm sorry, I tried a number of times to write a polite reply, but it still came down to this - WHAT THE FUCK!
Did you guys notice that TFA was talking about the hotels for foreigners? For an average Chinese, the government does not just monitor you, it simply BLOCKS you from seeing what it doesn't want you to see.
Did you guys know that in China everybody has to disclose their real life identity before they get online? Did you guys know that there have been people in China going to jail just for posting on the Internet to question government policies?
Now try and show me how much worse - or less courteous - it is in the US.
I mean, I'm upset with the warrantless eavesdropping issue as much as the next guy. I have gone so far as to rent my own dedicated server and ran all my traffic through thor. But on the other hand, I think that going as far as stating "they aren't that courteous in the US" only shows how ungrateful you are.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
> and ran all my traffic through thor.
Uh, that one stopped me for a moment.
Image having the Thunder God himself doing stateful packet inspection! Wow, talk about security!
Bravo. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't have to disclose their real-life identity just to get online. In every town there are many many internet bars full of computers where you can pay a couple rmb an hour to surf the internet. The people who run these establishments couldn't care less about who is on the computers.
Show you how it's less courteous? (Score:2)
Yeah China is worse. But it's FUCKING CHINA. Like they have a wonderful track record. On top of it all, FOREIGNERS in another country are subject to local laws/customs. What did they think because they're hosting the Olympics all the sudden China isn't run by a bunch of shit heads?
Also, what are you saying? That thanks to Tor, you're OK with warrantless wiretaps now? Because you have the knowledge to cover your tracks, it's OK! I remember reading on /. that Tor is not exactly fool proof, maybe things are be
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what are you saying? That thanks to Tor, you're OK with warrantless wiretaps now? Because you have the knowledge to cover your tracks, it's OK! I remember reading on /. that Tor is not exactly fool proof, maybe things are better now, I don't use it.
Did you miss the part right before that, you know, where I said "I am upset with the warrantless eavesdropping issue"? Never mind, let me just spell it out for you - no, I am still not OK with the issue.
My comment was meant as a sarcastic swipe at hypocritical politicians decrying the snooping on FOREIGNERS in a host country (especially when that host country is China, WTF did they expect??). Meanwhile in the U.S. they're snooping on their own fucking citizens without so much as having to show any proof of wrong doing or letting you know about it. But apparently it's not such a big deal because you know you can rent your own fucking server and use Tor.
In this context this is utterly hypocritical for Sen. Brownback to be taking a swipe at a country with China's record (I continue to be in shock and awe that anyone expected different in the first place) when things have been moving down a parallel (perhaps not IDENTICAL) path.
I never disagreed with your statement that it is hypocritical on Brownback's part. The problem I had with your post, if I didn't make it clear enough in my response, was the "they are not so courteous in the US" part.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, I'm upset with the warrantless eavesdropping issue as much as the next guy. I have gone so far as to rent my own dedicated server and ran all my traffic through thor.
Good job, you replaced the government eavesdropping you, with some random guy with possibly far more malicious intent, eavesdropping you (and if he's in US or Europe, a government still monitors you).
When you run thor, you've handed your ass to the exit node that thor has selected randomly for you: all emails, passwords, sites, everything you do, is available to the exit node in an unencrypted form. Exit nodes on thor are frequently rogue.
Only use thor to anonymize, and never pass sensitive information abou
Re: (Score:2)
Did you guys know that in China everybody has to disclose their real life identity before they get online?
You mean your ISP accepts false identities...? How do they know where to send the bills?
And don't say "disclose it to the government, not just to the ISP", because in the USA most ISPs will roll over and give government agencies whatever they ask for, without even asking for (let alone demanding) a warrant.
I'll take a country no elections over one with rigged elections any day. In the former there's at least the chance that the people will decide to fight for democracy. In the latter, they won't fight for i
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Malaysia you can pay for your dialup using scratch cards available at 7-Eleven as well as zillions of smaller shops that don't have security cameras. They ask for your national identity card number when you first register online but if you say you're a foreigner they just ask for your passport number which they have no way of validating. I am sure there are similar arrangements in many other places.
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Malaysia you can pay for your dialup using scratch cards available at 7-Eleven
You connect through a phone line, right? That phone line is registered to you, right? How hard do you think it is to trace you...?
They ask for your national identity card number when you first register online but if you say you're a foreigner they just ask for your passport number which they have no way of validating.
You think the government and the criminal police are unable to contact another country's agency to verify your passport number, if they really want to? Dream on.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of those countries where phone lines are often registered to the property and pass from person to person over the years. I have lived in places where nobody had any idea who the person named on the phone bill was.
Of course they can still work out the location, though they never seem to be able to find the place when I request repairs.
But okay, landlines can eventually be traced. Take wireless instead. Have a
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can still work out the location,
I rest my case. If they can make you pay the bill, they can trace your online activities.
As to using a cellphone, locating you while you are connected (by triangulation) is trivial for most operators, with modern equipment. The question is whether those operators will roll over and provide that data to the government / police / etc. or if they'll demand to see a court order first.
And, again, I'd rather be in a place where I know the rules (even if those rules are very strict, like "the government has access
Re: (Score:2)
In many cases there's no need to pay in order to get online.
Also, other paid examples come to mind. Airzed [airzed.com] is a paid service but they accept cash at convenience stores, and there's no effective requirement for identifying myself when I sign up.
And here's a company that sells wifi access via SMS [streamyx.com.my]. If they don't know at the time that I send the SMS that I plan to do something "bad" later, then they will not be able to tr
Re: (Score:2)
You mean your ISP accepts false identities...? How do they know where to send the bills?
Sigh, I wasn't talking about ISPs. Have you ever used an internet cafe? Did you _have_ to register with your id before getting online? Are the forums _required_by_law_ in this country to take and verify your true identity before allowing you to register?
I'll take a country no elections over one with rigged elections any day.
Fantastic. Please go ahead and renounce your US citizenship (or whichever country it is), apply to become a citizen of the People's Republic of China, go there and actually live there, and come back tell us you still want to make that bold statement up there
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever used an internet cafe? Did you _have_ to register with your id before getting online?
I have, and I did. The last thing an internet café wants is to be charged with downloading copyrighted material (or uploading child porn, or being the source of a DoS attack, etc.). Lots of internet cafes ask for ID, to cover their own asses. They won't go out of their way to verify that the ID is real, but they do ask for it. A lot of them also have security cameras, and keep a full log of what you do online, so it wouldn't be too hard to trace a client.
Although I've never been to China, a couple of r
Re: (Score:2)
I have, and I did. The last thing an internet café wants is to be charged with downloading copyrighted material (or uploading child porn, or being the source of a DoS attack, etc.). Lots of internet cafes ask for ID, to cover their own asses. They won't go out of their way to verify that the ID is real, but they do ask for it. A lot of them also have security cameras, and keep a full log of what you do online, so it wouldn't be too hard to trace a client.
The question is: are they being legally mandated to do so, or are they doing so out of self-protection? I think that makes the difference as far as this discussion is concerned. Just like somebody else pointed out that most of the internet cafes in China actually aren't actually enforcing the law, but that doesn't mean the law isn't there or it's not evil.
Although I've never been to China, a couple of relatives of mine lived there for several years (they speak Mandarin fluently). They came back with all their limbs and were never questioned by men in black (or maybe they erased their memories, OMG!). They actually lived pretty well there (they retired and came back to be with their grandchildren).
So they are Americans? You know, like those who don't have black hair and brown eyes, and always carry their US passports and the US Embassy's phone nu
Re: (Score:2)
The question is: are they being legally mandated to do so, or are they doing so out of self-protection?
It's irrelevant considering that:
a) Most of them will simply turn over that information to the government, without asking for a court order.
b) The ones that do so are very likely to get magical retroactive immunity if anyone finds out and complains that what they did was illegal.
c) Failing that, the government can wiretap the communications directly, and give retroactive immunity to itself.
Like the OP said, at least in China they tell you what the rules are from the start; they don't pretend that you have r
Re: (Score:2)
It's irrelevant considering that:
a) Most of them will simply turn over that information to the government, without asking for a court order.
b) The ones that do so are very likely to get magical retroactive immunity if anyone finds out and complains that what they did was illegal.
c) Failing that, the government can wiretap the communications directly, and give retroactive immunity to itself.
Like the OP said, at least in China they tell you what the rules are from the start; they don't pretend that you have rights and then do whatever they want. The rules might be too strict, and even "unfair", but you know what they are.
No, they're not. Believe it or not, americans are not God's chosen people. That's the jews.
The question really was "were they citizens of the PRC?" What makes the difference in this context is not whether you speak Mandarin (or however many more dialects fluently), but whether you are under the complete authority of the Chinese government.
I see. So they lived there for nearly 30 years, spoke the language fluently (two languages, in fact, IIRC), one of them actually worked for the public administration, but they never lived in China...?
You said "several years" in your previous post. My comment was based on that. Now it's suddenly 30?
What? Just 25 years? Then I guess by your own definition you never lived in China.
"My own definition"? When did I ever give a definition that draws the line at 30 years? Again you said "several years" earlier.
And you still haven't explained why you think people wouldn't be able to post on Slashdot from China. I'm particularly curious since Slashdot isn't mentioned anywhere as being blocked in China, and since I've seen several posts here made by people claiming to be in China. Maybe they are also mistaken and they never really lived there? Maybe no one has lived in China except you...?
Since you seem to use "several" in
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should have to be "grateful" for basic human rights, such as the right to privacy.
To the extent that any government denies these, it is a bad government that deserves criticism.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should have to be "grateful" for basic human rights, such as the right to privacy.
To the extent that any government denies these, it is a bad government that deserves criticism.
Oh I absolutely agree. When I said "ungrateful", I didn't mean "we should be grateful for not having our rights denied by the government." I meant "we should be grateful for being able to live in this country."
Disclaimer: just because I am grateful doesn't mean that I'm OK with the bad things the government of _this_ country has been and is doing. I just still believe in the fundamental values of this country, and I think that at least in this country, the worse enemy is not any particular government, but
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy that for a minute.
I've done lots of business in both China and the US. The US is a piece of cake by comparison. In China you have to get permission from half a dozen bureaucracies just to scratch your ass. You may not be aware of it if your company has hired a local fixer who makes these problems disappear with well-placed payments, but corruption is not the same as efficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
You know this irked me enough that I actually sent Sen. Brownback's office an e-mail. Seeing as how I don't live in Kansas, I wrote one to my states senators (Oregon) and my rep. (Blumenauer). It won't do any good, I'm sure of that, however at least I feel a bit better.
I'm sure I'm on some watch list now. I haven't had many positive things to write them about.
Someone needs to... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, before the New York State Attorney General shuts most of that down too.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone needs to slip a satellite based internet uplink in with their media gear. Even an old school MoDem hooked to a sat-phone would be sufficient if enough are used in parallel, then share the internet connection through a distributed wireless network to anyone nearby. Let the Chinese people get a taste of the other 98% of the internet they are missing out on.
Yeah, way to go Frito. great idea.
Hardly need anything that fancy. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK, they've broken the encryption scheme your pissy little VPN is using, so they can read your traffic just fine. Enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Needs termination (Score:2)
For a VPN to be useful you need somewhere to terminate it. Public free or subscription VPN termination endpoints don't seem to be too common (unsurprisingly, given the potential for abuse and relatively limited utility).
There are places that offer virtual servers or simple shell accounts where you can set up your own VPN termination, though. Even an SSH tunnel is quite sufficient, really.
However, you also need to be sure that your termination point doesn't have a deal with the Chinese gov't to permit monit
Re: (Score:2)
As a forieigner I would imagine the safest thing to do would be to VPN back to your employer. It wouldn't look suspicious because loads of people do that to access rescources on thier companies networks and it would keep all your traffic secure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The real question is NOT "do they have access," because I think recent history has shown, you can find workarounds for just about anything. The better question is "do they WANT access"?
Paranoid dystopia or not, protective xenophobia is nothing new, and I have a feeling we'd be looking at a lot more outcry from China if it actually existed. Sure, there's all the kerfuffle about Tibet, lead paint in the toys, human rights violations... I could go on for hours, but it comes down to what the Chinese people feel
Do business in China, play by Chinese rules. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
We're giving up our civil liberties in America, and not getting anything in return.
There, fixed that for you.
How about a VPN (Score:2)
Scandal (Score:2)
I think it is a scandal that China ever came to host the Olympics. From extreme censorship to massive doping and outright cheating; the Chinese proudly admitted how they told certain Chinese players to loose games so a more "correct" player could be chosen. Chinese doping is as organized as in the former East Germany and there is absolutely zero interest in combatting doping in China since the Olympic games are being used politically to show how superior the Chinese dictatorship is; doping means medals and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate Government oppression as anyone but I've got to call you out here. I think the Olympic Committee was hoping that the Chinese government would clean up it's act for it's people as a direct result of planning The Games.
In some respects this is true, there has been great infrastructure and environmental improvements in China recently. In terms of infrastructure, you might like to consult this interesting article, PART 1 [telegraph.co.uk], PART 2 [telegraph.co.uk] compari
Re: (Score:2)
I hate Government oppression as anyone but I've got to call you out here. I think the Olympic Committee was hoping that the Chinese government would clean up it's act for it's people as a direct result of planning The Games.
Oh, so you really believe that the IOC choose China as host nation? Pretty naive considering the amount of corruption that usually decides it (google IOC and corruption). Anyway taken on face value it is very interesting that IOC choosed a host nation based on _political_ reasons, not ne
Ministry of Truth (Score:2)
China has Ministry of Truth in place. I think that is pretty obvious by now. Giving the media spotlight this is going to give China I can't say that they are playing there cards well. China, as a country might fall apart in the next 20 years because of how they handle the media today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Truth [wikipedia.org]
Consistency (Score:2)
Good. If you have laws in place they should be applied to everyone.
I don't like the chinese firewall laws, but I dislike laws that aren't applied fairly to everyone even more.
censorship equals repression (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you want evidence of the China's use of the death penalty, torture and detention without trial and the persecution of human rights defenders?
Check out the websites of human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Human Rights in China and Amnesty International.
Censorship is displayed thro China's Government controls on what journalists write and who they interview, what schools publish in textbooks, what statistics citzens are allowed to know and what TV programs you can easily watch. When infor
Re: (Score:1)
Believe or not (Score:1)
Re:Capitalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Incompatible with liberalism
If by "liberalism" you mean the philosophy of letting people do their own thing (i.e., what libertarianism used to be called), you couldn't be more wrong. Capitalism is the ideal economic system for such a political philosophy.
Incompatible with conservatism
I guess that depends on how you define "conservatism". You may have a point, but don't be so vague.
Incompatible with human rights
The fact that the US has always been capitalistic, and done ok on human rights (not great, but not terrible either), contradicts this.
Incompatible with human nature.
Absolute horseshit. Capitalism aligns PERFECTLY with human nature. Human nature is to improve one's own lot in life as much as possible. Capitalism is to make as much profit for oneself as possible.
Somebody please tell me why we're still fisting Adam Smith's very dry corpse?
Maybe because it's worked out pretty damned well? It's not perfect, but nothing is. Maybe you live in a world where everything goes right all the time, but most of us sure don't.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Incompatible with human nature.
Absolute horseshit. Capitalism aligns PERFECTLY with human nature. Human nature is to improve one's own lot in life as much as possible. Capitalism is to make as much profit for oneself as possible.
Most of the points you raise are fair and while I do not agree with them all they are well made and relevent to the discussion. Your view of human nature frightens me. Self interest may well be the default nature of the human animal, but not of the human being. A world in which everyone is interested only in persuing his or her own desires would be hell on earth, although admittedly it is encouraged by the dominant western religion (consumerism).
As for Adam Smith, he was a Christian. He lived in a world in
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's both. Like pretty much every word in the English language, it has multiple meanings. If you look it up www.m-w.com. you'll find that the word has meanings associated with both generosity and personal autonomy, which is what the GP said ("letting people do their own thing").
Remember that communication has 3 components: how the message is delivered, how you interpreted it, and how the originator intended it. All too often, people ignore that last component.
Yeah, this is off topic, but it might
Re: (Score:1)
>> Incompatible with liberalism
> If by "liberalism" you mean the philosophy of letting people do their own thing (i.e., what libertarianism used to be called), you couldn't be more wrong. Capitalism is the ideal economic system for such a political philosophy.
I'm not the AC who posted that, but that's NOT what liberalism means. It comes from liberal (not liberty). It has more to do with a generous and caring society, NOT one where you can do whatever the hell you want.
But I don't blame you for not knowing it. Chinese speakers of English use the word far more often than we do. But it is a real word.
That is exactly what liberalism means. What you think it means is socialism, which is called by its proper name in Europe and South America, but in America they thought Liberal sounded better than Socialist. I wonder why? ;-) *cough* red scare *cough*
Hence Libertarians had to change their name to avoid confusion with the Liberals Homer hates so much...
"Grrrr... Liberals.... Grrr...."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean a hundred of years of slavery is "O.K.?" Then I want to know what country does not o.k. in your book?
a) Of couse not. But the US also worked to advance freedom by the formation of our system of government, for example. We have always done both good and bad... the good usually outweighing the bad.
b) Several countries don't do OK. Soviet Russia didn't, Nazi Germany didn't, China still doesn't, etc... it's not hard to pick out some examples if you look.
This kind of egoism does only align with the worst in human nature. I question the humanity of a being that is only after his/her own interest. Not to say that self interest has its place. But without considering what it does to others or what would happen if everybody would act the same way is simply inhumane. Because with this kind of limitless self interest I can justify slavery, destruction of the environment, sub prime mortgage debacles (it was certainly in the self interest of some people), even aggressive wars.
I didn't say it was good or bad, just in line with human nature. That's not a debateable point, imnsho. It's just plain fact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I didn't say it was good or bad, just in line with human nature. That's not a debateable point, imnsho. It's just plain fact.
It is very much a debatable point. Are you arguing that Jesus, Buddah, Mandela, Ghandi and countless others are not human? It is my belief that it is you that subscribes to an inhumane philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you mean a hundred of years of slavery is "O.K.?"
Then I want to know what country does not o.k. in your book?
Capitalism did not create slavery. It existed before it developed. But England - a very much pioneering capitalist nation - DID outlaw slavery and slave trade overseas much earlier than many countries dreamed to emancipate slaves.
This kind of egoism does only align with the worst in human nature. I question the humanity of a being that is only after his/her own interest. Not to say that self interest has its place. But without considering what it does to others or what would happen if everybody would act the same way is simply inhumane.
You say that the human desire of improving his condition aligns with the worst in human nature? How do you expect poor people to free themselves from poverty other than trying to make a better life for themselves? With welfare checks?
Because with this kind of limitless self interest I can justify slavery, destruction of the environment, sub prime mortgage debacles (it was certainly in the self interest of some people), even aggressive wars.
Oh could you? Interesting insight into your pers
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Somebody please tell me why we're still fisting Adam Smith's very dry corpse?
-----
I think your familiarity with Adam Smith is limited.
To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers.
....Snip...
But a company of merchants are,