China Wants UN To Help Trace Sources On Internet 303
An anonymous reader brings us a CNet story, which begins:
"A United Nations agency is quietly drafting technical standards, proposed by the Chinese government, to define methods of tracing the original source of Internet communications and potentially curbing the ability of users to remain anonymous. The U.S. National Security Agency is also participating in the 'IP Traceback' drafting group, named Q6/17, which is meeting next week in Geneva to work on the traceback proposal. Members of Q6/17 have declined to release key documents, and meetings are closed to the public. The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe, has alarmed some technologists and privacy advocates. Also affected may be services such as the Tor anonymizing network."
yeah but (Score:4, Insightful)
--
find my ip address [ipfinding.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If adopted by a country, then the ISPs of that country would have to follow.
Re:yeah but (Score:4, Interesting)
It's simple, host the proxy/exit nodes. (Score:3, Insightful)
All China and the NSA has to do is host the nodes people connect to when becoming anonymous.
What I don't understand is why the UN, the NSA and China are working together. It does not seem to serve the strategic interests of any one of these groups because they all want to crack down on anonymous communication domestically while promoting it in foreign countries.
Re:It's simple, host the proxy/exit nodes. (Score:5, Funny)
Good point$. I'm not $ure why they would do thi$ either. Thi$ idea $tink$ and I cannot $ee why other government$ would do thi$ after decrying China'$ right$ inva$ion$ of their own citizen$ - e$pecially $ince China doe$ not help u$ track down pirate$ and Internet criminal$ in their country...
Re:It's simple, host the proxy/exit nodes. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't understand is why the UN, the NSA and China are working together.
Because there's one thing all governments have in common: once they get power, including power over their own people, they want to get more of it, and they especially don't want to lose any of it. For them, an anonymous Internet is a step in the wrong direction.
Use proxies (Score:2)
They are usually dog slow but at least they think your message comes from Argentina or South Africa.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And if the UN gets its way, proxies will be illegal. So will open wifi. Anything that might let you hide will be banned.
Perhaps there will be a good use for botnets after all :)
bugger (Score:3, Funny)
First po....wait someone at the door
Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:3, Insightful)
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes. While there are definitely troubling implications to being able to identify people on the Internet (especially considering who's involved here.. China and the NSA..), being able to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals is a worthwhile goal.
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the right to be anonymous (if you choose) outweighs the "need to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals."
There are other ways to trace scammers...follow the money. In order to scam you, they must create a pathway for funds to travel from you to them.
Cheers,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Money is the easiest thing to track (Score:2, Insightful)
Only if you don't spend it. And if you cannot spend it, why bother?
Well, that bothers me, too. One should just remember that anonymous Swiss account were created to protect Jews from Nazi prosecution. But, still, the police has plenty of ways to investigate suspicious fortunes without intruding into bank accounts. Like, let's say, check the IRS returns for that guy with the R
financial anonymity (Score:3, Insightful)
i could have the exact same argument with money that financials should be private.
And it should be private.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry: did you really just place flame wars and spam on the same level as teenage suicide?
But more to the point: the reason why so many people see a problem with anonymity is that they themselves choose not to be anonymous on the internet. So many of us learned long ago to keep our online lives separate from our real lives, and so for us we have virtually nothing to lose. The only real damage that can be done by anonymous users is to people who post personal information in blogs, use email addresses with their real names on public forums, etc.
I see no reason to remove anonymity from the internet, only a need to educate users.
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet another idiot thinking that being able to trace is the same as being able to catch criminals.
If they do it right, and yes, a lot do, then you'll be traced back to... well... an INNOCENT PERSON. With laws like this it is too much in the hands of "guilty until proven innocent".
The logs say it was you, therefore it was you - even if it wasn't. Meanwhile the scammers get away scott free.
I know myself, if I really wanted to not be traced, I wouldn't be. I'd be hijacking wireless, sticking trojan/worms with proxy facilities on as many workstations as I can. The list goes on.
No, this is not a good idea, even if you have this bogus "if you're not doing anything wrong you don't need to be worried" attitude. You DO need to be worried because as someone who is "innocent" you are a prime target for being the point of entry.
There is no way this idea will be able to get past any open UN boards. Kind of goes against the human rights charter of the UN.
To me, it's just another group of governments trying to get the UN to do something bogus. Unfortunately, the last time a country did that they bypassed the UN and just started killing innocent Iraqi people.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN (Score:2)
The UN is useless. The only reason it hasn't gone the way of the League of Nations is because of nuclear weapons. Mutually assured destruction has done more to prevent another World War than the UN ever did.
It depends on your agenda. if you are trying to slowly move to a one world government situation with each country losing its sovereignty and all laws dropping to the lowest common denominator, then you are still on track for that goal to be successful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lump the UN, WTO, etc all into one big bucket.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The purpose of the UN is not to serve your fantasy desire for sanctioning governments operating differently from what you are conditioned to approve of. The purpose of the UN is to facilitate communication and avoid war by providing a venue for that communication. The UN is a success.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:5, Insightful)
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes.
Like, for example, criticizing a tyrannical regime?
I'm glad you weren't in charge in 1773.
Re: (Score:2)
1773? What happened then?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ok, fair enough. I looked it up and there seemed to be many events that year.
I'm still unsure what the Boston tea party has to do with this discussion. I mean, it was an attack on the East India Company because they were granted a monopoly on importing tea to the US. Isn't that correct?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but in the American historical mythology it's An Important Blow Against the British Scum For Freedom(TM), where "Freedom(TM)" means "the USA Constitution and Bill of Rights".
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds a lot like terrorism to me.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds a lot like terrorism to me.
It often depends (largely on who the victor turns out to be.) Seriously though, violence for its own sake is rarely useful, but violence with a purpose [wikipedia.org] can sometimes be worthwhile in the long run. Still, I wouldn't have wanted to be a member of the East India Company right around then.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem I see, is that the badguys will be able to hide just as well as they are now (by for using a machine they do not own, like with a botnet), but the goodguys and -gals will have less anonimity.
This is not a good proposal.
Re:Anonymity is not an unlimited right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the mod points when you actually want them?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not aimed for having another tool against badguys. It will be a tool against those who some government thinks are badguys.
The definition of badguy according to a government is sometimes simply someone who tries to take down the real badguys, that is the members of that government.
Re: (Score:2)
Viva la overly simple worldview
Maybe ... but China's activities and that of our own government in matters regarding widespread surveillance of public communications would indicate that, simplistic or otherwise, the GP is correct. That's because the control and monitoring of telecommunications on a grand scale is power. Power is invariably abused.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't drink their kool-aid. Sure, tracking down and prosecuting criminals is always a noble goal right? I mean thats why they keep tearing up our rights. To track down terrorists, or child pornographers, or whatever else.
When speaking badly about your government becomes a crime will it still be a worthwhile goal to track down criminals?
We have given government the ability to declare who is and isn't a criminal, and now you propose we allow them to do whatever they want in order to find criminals?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only a right insofar as you're not committing any crimes.
No, it's a right period.
being able to track down and prosecute scammers, spammers, and other criminals is a worthwhile goal.
To you perhaps but not to others. Like Benjamen Franklin said those who would give up a little liberty for safety neither deserves nor will get either.
Falcon
time to get worried (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, I'm sure the Chinese agree with you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, get worried.
Both governments (used in the generic sense, as opposed to the populations) want pretty much the same thing:
Ability to act on it's own self interests via foreign policy without much obstruction from "everybody else".
A quiet, stable citizenry. With as little interest in rabble rousing and dissension as is possible.
Some way to perpet
It's an election year -- we're safe for now (Score:4, Insightful)
If the tech community makes enough buzz about this, it's likely that we can put the pin back in this grenade. Nobody is going to want to support violating the sanctity of The Internet in an important U.S. election year!
There already exists a process for getting a name from an I.P. address, and that process thankfully requires court action / subpoena of ISP. Let's keep them in the loop, and make this tracing a relatively hard thing to get, with lots of human approvals needed.
Hopefully, this proposed short-circuiting of the judicial branch will just help the United Nations -- totally overstepping its proper bounds -- slide into further irrelevance. Even if the U.N. does serve a proper function in today's world, this certainly is way beyond its domain.
--
Hey code monkey, learn electronics! Microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re:It's an election year -- we're safe for now (Score:4, Insightful)
If the tech community makes enough buzz about this, it's likely that we can put the pin back in this grenade. Nobody is going to want to support violating the sanctity of The Internet in an important U.S. election year!
I'm assuming you're being serious. Everything that I've heard on TV and radio regarding what the typical voter is concerned about has nothing about the internet. Folks are voting on: the economy, taxes, abortion, the wars, our security, and whether or not the candidate believes in Jesus enough. No internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Also this proposal will only be "on the table" in a year from now, by that time the 2008 elections have already been held.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the tech community makes enough buzz about this, it's likely that we can put the pin back in this grenade.
This ironically reminds me of the title of a nice (and rather old) text [fourmilab.ch], which sadly sounds almost like prophecy now.
Not Just China... forcing the IETF's hand? (Score:5, Informative)
"What's distressing is that it doesn't appear that there's been any real consideration of how this type of capability could be misused," said Marc Rotenberg"
Wait... How can you correctly use this service? It seems like something only the clandestine agencies and major corporations of the world would like to see happen.
Anyways, according to TFS, this proposal would almost certainly have to modify existing protocols. Can't that be blocked by the CS/Engineering community members who sit on respective committees? Can international/national governments really force IETF to do something, as the article claims?
Re: (Score:2)
It's still quite evil of course.
Re:Not Just China... forcing the IETF's hand? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft can get OOXML to become an ISO standard, I imagine that the US can pretty much get IETF to do whatever it wants.
Let's not forget that the current IETF chair is partially funded by the NSA [networkworld.com], so they certainly have the power of the purse.
Bellovin's take (Score:5, Insightful)
Obligatory quote from a true American (Score:2, Insightful)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but those who doubly qualify their bold statements with broad, limiting modifiers will find their main point somewhat debiggened.
For Franklin must certainly have believed that non-essential liberties were perfectly reasonable to give up in exchange for reasonably long-term safety, or he would not have supported the formation of any government at all.
Encryption Won't Be Enough (Score:2)
What really irritates me is that just sending or receiving an e-mail from a particular address, or even general location, could be enough to get you well and truly screwed. Time for some kind of TwInternet...one that includes a whole bunch of off-shore infrastructure that scrubs stuff thoroughly on its way from A to B. One without a bunch of fascists in the driver's seat.
Give government time to tax regulate and monitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at your POTS phone service. Here the government has been able to add laws and taxes for over half a century. And they have: Full traceback, full surveillance access as well as: Access tax, federal excist tax, state tax, local tax, Universal service tax, 911 tax, LNP tax and TRS tax.
Expect the internet to be worse than this over time.
KISS (Score:2)
What struck me about this, is the fact that such things always seem to be designed by committee. I'm currently in the process of designing network hardware, and every time I look at IPv4 I can't help thinking: there's 8 too many bytes in the IPv4 header. One should have source and destination addresses, a length, a ttl and sub-protocol number. Everything else is just design-by-committee candy. That leads to two conclusions (for me at least): if you want to make a good spec, you should keep things simple
Hand-in-hand with the now Islamic-controlled UN (Score:4, Interesting)
The UN Human Rights Council was recently taken over by extremist Islamic states, who redefined the role of the council as protecting the world from "abuses" of free speech.
So China now has an ally in the UN.
In a few years, "unislamic" content providers will start to feel the heat.
Re: (Score:2)
HA! I wish. Instead the UN "Human Rights" Council will just spend its time trying to wipe Israel off the map in word (since they've failed so repeatedly to do so in deed).
Re: (Score:2)
Remaining Anonymous (Score:2)
Ya, cant let our citizens speak out without being identifiable by the government.
I propose a new law that ... (Score:2)
... prohibits all secrecy with regard to laws, or the development processes for all laws.
Still want UN to control the Internet? (Score:2)
I know, I know — America's NSA is "in on it" too (and most will, no doubt, suspect, that their participation is due to the worst intentions). But, at least, they are our spies — subject to our laws, responsible to our lawmakers.
Any increase of control over the Internet by the UN automatically means increase of control by China, Russia, et al. "The world", which, for example, is still unsure, who did 9/11 [reuters.com] talks about being "multipolar" — they should be careful, what they wish for...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so goddamn sick
If they implement a means to trace the IP ... (Score:2)
... then it will just be hacked by spammers and the origin will be forged.
Them first (Score:3, Informative)
I find it incredibly backwards that China is asking for this. It is practically impossible to get any kind of justice from China, which is why a large number of hosts treat Chinese IPs as hostile. If you get scammed by someone within the great firewall, there is no legal recourse.
If China wants to play with the rest of the world, they need to start playing by our rules. I'm sure we all want to tap into their demographic, but until we can do that in a safe and controller manner, I don't see any reason why we should grant them any privileges.
With privilege comes responsibility.
Point of Contention (Score:2)
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous...
There is no such right.
You don't own the internet, and you don't have any rights, other then perhaps consumer rights from your ISP (minimum level of acceptable service, etc).
Its like suggesting we have a right to force power companies to supply power to anonymous homes. Theres no such thing. You can ask to remain anonymous to your power company, but thats upto the power companies to decide, otherwise they can decline (which they almost always would)
Being anonymous on the internet isn't a right, its not even
Misinterpreting the Constitution (Score:2)
It's been a longstanding chronic misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights to conclude that anything in those documents attempts to define anonymity as a "right". No one has a right to be anonymous. You might get away with remaining somewhat anonymous in this or that context - say, the Internet - for a period of time, but it's not a right. "No man is an island"... ever heard that cliche? What it means is that what you do has an effect on others around you, unless you actually live alone o
Tracking people (Score:2)
If only the autorities spent as much energy doing something REAL about burglars (house breakers), muggers, rapists and all the other low-lifes that make everyday law abiding people's lives a f-ing misery.
Not likely to see the world-wide light of day (Score:4, Interesting)
While I, as a citizen of the U.S., find it somewhat alarming that a member of the NSA would be involved in the group that is working on this proposal, I admit that's a knee-jerk reaction. Things may have gone pretty far south in this country because of the last eight years or so of administrations, but we haven't had the First Admendment repealed either -- not that some haven't wished for it or tried (reference: G.W. Bush saying the Constitution is "only a piece of paper"). Still having a measure of belief that what the U.S. was originally founded on hasn't been (completely) destroyed, I'll foster the hope that the NSA's involvement in this is more likely largely to keep an eye on what China has brewing -- at best to keep it in check, at worst to at least see what's coming.
Something that occurred to me while I was reading TFA: Wouldn't IPv6 be an intrinsic part of a traceback technology? We certainly all believe that IPv4 address space is rapidly running out, and that ostensibly IPv6 is going to "save us", and we've all heard that everyone on the planet could be issued an IPv6 address that personally identifies them. After reading TFA, it's more than possible that IPv6 was created in part with traceback in mind. Will this sort of technology be forced down the world's throat by the U.N.? Extremely unlikely. The U.S., for one, (as stated in TFA) would not go along with it, as it does fly in the face of the First Amendment -- although admittedly, the intelligence community, in collusion with American ISPs, already can track and trace individual's activities on the internet (or at least the less adept and less wary users). Technologies like Secure SHell, proxies, and Tor (among others) currently provide layers of protection that, I think, are adequate, and well-known to the more technically-savvy. Aside from the U.S., there are enough countries in the world that will object to this sort of technology and will not stand idly by and watch the rest of the world potentially infringe on the rights of their citizens.
So far as I'm concerned, China can do whatever they want within their own borders. So far as I'm concerned, things like this will only increase the level of unrest with Chinese citizens and increase the possibility of uprising.
Re:"right" ? (Score:5, Interesting)
"...numerous courts have upheld the right to anonymity online in similar contexts." -ACLU [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
then its ok if they can find out who you are.
There's different kinds of anonynimity, there's the one where no-one truly knows who you are (eg you send an anonymous letter to a journalist), then there's the one where someone knows who you are but refuses to divulge that information (eg a journalist who has interviewed you and posts your story as an anonymous source).
Both provide you with the same anonymity, but the latter obviously carries more authority.
If the courts have decided that you have the right to
Re: (Score:2)
... and no abuse will ever take place ...
Re:"right" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The difference between these two types of anonymity is that the former actually protects you against a tyrant, while the latter only protects you against a nice, law-abiding, touchy-feely tyrant who'd never torture your name out of the journalist.
No, that is not okay, not if you're doing anything actually important with your anonymity. It wouldn't be okay even if the ISP's and everyone else involved could actually be trusted to obey the laws - which they can't, as the whole telcom wiretap issue and following retroactive immunity proves.
The problem is: what happens when the malicious scum is the accuser, rather than the accused ?
"Accountability" sure sounds nice, until you realize just who you're be accountable for.
It's a natural right that is wasteful to suppress. (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech is a natural right. It is something anyone can do that can only be eliminated by state actions of the most oppressive and wasteful kinds. Nothing is more wasteful or oppressive than state efforts to identify and retaliate against people who say things the state does not like. Speech without anonymity is not free and states that make efforts to eliminate anonymity in speech are unAmerican.
Shame on the US for cooperating with China to eliminate free speech on the internet. Such a program would
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The potential for eroding Internet users' right to remain anonymous, which is protected by law in the United States and recognized in international law by groups such as the Council of Europe
Re:"right" ? (Score:4, Informative)
In the USA there are two types of rights: enumerated and reserved. The enumerated ones are spelled out in the Constitution. At the end of the Constitution, it says (paraphrased) 'and all rights not spelled out here is reserved by the people'. That leaves a lot of territory and so pretty much any activity can be called a 'right' under that broad statement. So the tricky part is getting those reserved rights codified somehow so you know exactly what you can and cannot get away with. 'Privacy', 'anonymity', etc, are all reserved rights. The most famous is probably 'privacy'. The SCOTUS has on several occasions ruled that it was a reasonable right people should expect and they've applied it to abortion and birth control cases. That's all another rant as to whether abortion is a privacy issue or its own thing; the main point is that if you're pissed off that everything is claimed as an intrinsic right then you're probably in a country that doesn't have a Constitution that open endedly reserves a tremendous amount of power to its citizens the way the US one does.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. As usual, some non-American is getting on a high horse despite my post clearly stating its my local view. The US is part of the whole world and in the absense of Happy Unity Total World Government, everyone can feel free to post their local interpretation. No, the UN is not a world government. And most member nations are NOT democracies. And as afraid to complain as the citizens of some countries are (see article for a place called 'China'), Americans are happy to complain loudly enough to make up th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
A person makes an intelligent point and you post something like 'Score -2 stupid American?
I am an American. IMO, we should pull out of the UN. It is a failed idea, corrupted by dictators and tyrants. It seeks to form the world into a single government... and that government would NOT be a democracy.
So how about a Mod down to Troll for this A-Hole.
Re: (Score:2)
It seeks to form the world into a single government... and that government would NOT be a democracy.
Ummm... not really. In fact, not at all. I'd only start worrying about that when the UN gets a genuine army rather than a bunch of "peacekeepers" donated by member states.
But it's definitely a failed idea corrupted by tyrants and dictators. Oh, and the democracies being addicted to the natural resources supplied by the dictators and tyrants.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. The U.N. is not self-sustaining: if they tried anything like that they'd find themselves without funding the very next day.
Re:"right" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a US-hosted site with a majority of its users being americans. Of course he brought up the system we have in the US.
What did you expect? A dissertation on rights in every single country, state and municipality in the world? If you don't expect him to enumerate EVERY SINGLE system of rights on the planet, then you acknowledge that he has to choose what to talk about. If he has to choose what to talk about, wouldn't it make sense that he talks about what he is most knowledgable in?
Now,
2. your own government doesn't stick to the rules anyway
I'll be the first to bash our government on our technology policy, but your quote, while factually accurate, is misleading. Yes, there is a big controversy over the government wiretapping without a warrant, but that doesn't change (what the article is talking about) the ability to be anonymous. We still have free internet cafes and other points we can get to the internet anonymously and post dissident material, which is a bedrock of our society. The court even struck down a state anti-spam law because it removed the right to anonymity.
for me i consider privacy a right, but anonymity is purely dependant on the situation. should scammers have the right to post shit anonymously? of course they don't, hence it's not a "right".
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you're from, but in a number of jurstictions (including, I would assume all democracies), the right to privacy _is_ a right. It is in the US, and it is in the UK/EU.
In fact, I think that the right to anonymity (in terms of speech) is a fundamental right in a free and open society.
IANAL, but my impression was slightly different than your +5 Insightful comment would indicate.
Links?
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
your own government doesn't stick to the rules anyway
All governments try to fuck over their citizens.
This is why the American concept of natural rights (derived from the Enlightenment) is so important. Rights are not something granted by government. They belong to all living beings and cannot be revoked by any government.
If the government is messing around with your rights too much it is your right and duty to fix it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To be honest I think you'll deserve it but the rest of us don't. If you're so against anonymity then why not post your name and address here. Clearly you're for that so why not be a leader instead of a follower and start t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been to China and have nothing to do with it so it sure as hell doesn't have the right to nose in on my life.
Re:"right" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
People make the mistake of assuming that the Constitution enumerates all the rights that we citizens have, and that the rest are privileges granted by the Government. The exact opposite is true, and we've been remiss in reminding our elected leaders of that fact.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, I do have a right to privacy.
If you live in the US like I do, the only time I don't have rights is when it is explicitly stated so by the Constitution. Does the US Constitution say that I don't have a right to privacy? The answer is no.
On the converse, if the Constitution doesn't explicitly state I have said right, I STILL HAVE it. The Constitution does say that any right not listed is in the domain of the people, not the government. Therefore, I have the right, and just because you decide to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are publicly doing something, you don't have any right not to be observed. You don't even have a right to prevent someone observing you from trying to determine your identity. Even if you take steps to hide your identity, you still don't have a right to prevent anyone from using whatever information they can observe.
But don't underestimate my second point - th
Re:Criminal activity (Score:5, Insightful)
Make no mistake, this is a bad, bad thing.
[setenv rant=ON]
* For example, those two old ladies that were sent to "re-education camp" during the Olympics because they had the temerity to go through the official application process required to use the official protest area set aside by the Chinese government for the specific purpose of allowing peaceful, nondisruptive demonstrations. They only made that area available to satisfy international concerns, (ie, to give the IOC a fig leaf to hide behind on rights issues), and then used it as a trap to catch any of their own citizens that might be lulled into thinking it was safe to speak.
China does not give a dusty rat turd about rights (of their own citizens, or anyone else's), as clearly demonstrated by their willingness to disingenuously double back on their promise of allowing protests. They gambled that the rest of the world would stand by and let it happen, instead of rightfully shaming the Chinese government for their actions, and judging by the international response (practically nil), they were right.
[setenv rant=OFF]
Re:Criminal activity (Score:4, Insightful)
The Chinese government speaks not just though its state-controlled press, but through its actions as well, and their actions speak louder to me than their words. Members of the press from abroad have been intimidated and had pictures of protests confiscated by the Chinese government. [cleveland.com]
- How many requests for permission to protest were made? My latest sources say about 77.
- Of those, how many were granted permission to protest during the Games?
- Of those, how many actually protested during the Games?
- Learning Chinese would be great, but is more than I can do right now. What reliable and trustworthy (ie, non-government related) sources of information are there for an English-speaker like myself?
It seems that Beijing has gone out of its way to squash free speech [cityweekend.com.cn], intimidate critics, [france24.com] and to imprison dissidents [amnestyusa.org]. Are all these sources willfully libeling China?
To the original topic: If it were in my power to grant or withhold, I would never entrust China (or any government - even my own) with tools that would help it roll back the shield of anonymity that protects the natural right of people to speak freely.
Re: (Score:2)
If your friendly government has a tool that it says will "only be used against the bad guys". What to keep you from being a "bad guy" when an unfriendly government comes to power (either by force or by coercion)
Why? (Score:2)
Well thats easy: By definition, governments don't like unabated anonymous speech.
The ability to ( effectively ) hide is what scares the government the most about the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
AC troll = success
(troll rubs hands with glee as it counts outraged replies, regards its diminutive and all-too-short-lived stiffy with wonder, knows in its heart of hearts that it would never get another if people would stop feeding trolls, plots next troll with renewed sense of purpose)
Re: (Score:2)
> Um.. no.. look at the final medal count. China only won the gold medal count, and that was because of a lot of the standard 'home field advantage' that happens in EVERY Olympics
Funny how the US is the only country to order the table that way (as far as I looked). The rest of the world sort by gold, then silver, then bronze, and they think you're pathetic for ordering it any other way.
The US is best at losing, that's all. I best the US would be best if you counted all the other positions too. Heck, what
Re: (Score:2)
OK, redo the table. Include the paralympics too, and device the number of medals by population.
That would be interesting...I'll bet that the USA doesn't come anywhere near top.