China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan 355
mormop writes "The Chinese government has praised UK Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for censoring social networking sites at times when the government feels threatened, believing it legitimizes China own behavior. Quoting Chinese state media website Global Times: 'Britain's new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.'"
+1 (Score:5, Insightful)
You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.
Re:+1 (Score:5, Funny)
Let's hope politicians don't try to stall this plan, as the UK are at risk of having their oppression rating downgraded to an AA+.
Hyperbole (Score:5, Informative)
Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.
We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
If enacted, those provisions would be used against dissenters just like the Terrorism Act is now.
I personally know people who've were detained under the Terrorism Act for walking through Charing Cross station with placards in their bag on the day of the royal wedding. They were released hours later and I believe are planning legal action.
You're a fool if you think laws giving those kinds of powers to police to control social media won't be used against political dissenters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That comment has in turn lead to claims of fascism, censorship et al. How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation. In this specific case those claims are, as yet, unwarranted. By all means freak out when there's a law being propos
Re: (Score:3)
but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).
Re: (Score:2)
but at this point, with the information and contect, it's unwarranted.
Unwarranted? Well, some may disagree. And what he's talking about is indeed censorship (whether people agree with it is another matter, though).
The point is that a politician mentioning the possibility of censorship is some distance removed from an actual law invoking censorship.
After the riots, you could find people, including politicians, talking about the imposition of curfews, arming all the police, bringing back p;ublic flogging and so on. It doesn't mean any of them will happen, and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
and anyway they are far more serious than the temporary suspension of access to fucking twitter.
Whether they're more serious or not is probably subjective. However, that is probably what most people think. Other than that, I agree with you that talking doesn't necessarily mean anything will actually happen.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
So instead of throwing rocks and burning cars, London could be the setting for a Wild West shootout. What an improvement!
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is that other part that would have loved to have seen an Apache helicopter cruise up the road and chain gun them all. If they were armed I think we'd have a better case to back that one up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Today, the showdown at OK Corral would barely make news
Maybe in the U.S., where gun murders are more common... but in most of Western Europe three deaths by shooting would definitely make headlines.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Training? Are you serious? A gun is NOT a complicated mechanism. What you want is license not a right. Sorry, but the truth is it's a right. If you are so ignorant you can't figure out how a gun works, then you probably aren't reading this because you can't read. Especially Americans, we have guns for breakfast, lunch and supper hear, we sleep with them under our pillows, we put them in our cars, in our cartoons, we have toy guns for when we are kids, our games have guns, our computer games have lots and lo
Re: (Score:3)
Violent crime in the UK is much higher per capita than in the US
In 2009, the US had 5.0 homicides per 100,000 people. The UK had 1.28 homicides per 100,000.
I find it a little hard to believe that there are more violent crimes per capita in the UK, but almost four times less murders.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea why Britain is so proud of their defenseless citizens. It used to be that every man age 15-60 had to have a bow, and practice on Sundays and public holidays.
Re: (Score:3)
Some might argue that protecting king and country is self defense.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember the big L.A. riots? People in Los Angeles were essentially disarmed also.
How about the big Nashville riots? No? Probably because they didn't happen. And Nashville happens to be a place where guns are moderately common.
Fact is, most people trying to steal a flat-screen TV don't have a major interest in getting shot for their trouble, and tend to look for safer lines of work if the likelihood of getting shot starts going up.
Once upon a time, shortly after Florida made concealed carry legal, it was noticed that there was a spike in robberies of people in rental cars in Florida. Upon investigation (and the questioning of various people robbing people driving rental cars), it was determined that the people who like to steal things from other people had decided (correctly) that people in rental cars tended to be from out of State, and thus has ZERO chance of packing heat. Which made them much safer to rob than the general public....
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that a politician mentioning the possibility of censorship is some distance removed from an actual law invoking censorship.
It's about as far removed as a private soldier with mine detection gear walking cautiously down a road checking to see if it is safe. If he finds no mines, about 20 minutes later an armoured division will be rattling down the road, on its way to blot someone out of existence.
So we had better hope he finds some mines.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Hyperbole (Score:4, Insightful)
That's bollocks. The UK has a load of CCTV (which seems damn ineffective looking at the results from last week) and ANPR is being aggressively installed without debate (next big liberty row ahead), but there's no separate paramilitary police (France, Germany, US National Guard [?}, et al.) or a nationwide police force under direct govt control (e.g. FBI). We almost certainly have a very advanced spying of phones and t'internet (hello GCHQ and thanks IRA)- and it's more than likely that all phone calls are monitored. But read up on Echelon; it's not just the UK.
I was in a Ventura, north of LA, a few years ago and we found out about the ATF. They came into a bar below our hotel and made the drinkers overturn their pints 'cause the ratio of alcohol/food in the bar's accounts was not the same as the licencing conditions. That's an intense police state.
Re: (Score:2)
While I am far from defending the US government, this may be quite different from the picture you paint.
Re: (Score:2)
> How can we expect rational debate and careful consideration of complicated issues if we all jump to extreme reactions even at the slighest provocation.
Is the issue complicated? Who is the master and who is the servant? What do constitutions say?
If I am the master I can say: "uuugh those servants ought to be all hanged by their balls". And expect no repercussion, I simply voiced an opinion on my servants, I am not even required to be remotely correct, I am the master. If I am not allowed to say that, I
Re: (Score:3)
Which is somewhat my point. What provisions? None have been proposed. None. What we have here is a comment made in a speech. Not a policy paper. Not a proposal. A comment.
That is exactly the way such politicians normally operate. Terrified of anything that might give them bad publicity or affect their popularity ratings, before they even consider doing anything they fly a kite - as Cameron did - to see what reactions it provokes.
Which is precisely why it is essential for everyone to give it a sound drubbing, point out how illiberal and repressive it would be, and mock Cameron soundly for aligning himself with the Chinese government. It won't take much of that for him to thin
Re: (Score:2)
Love the irony of shooting someone for speaking freely because they're in some way against free speech.
Re:Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, I believe that the Prime Minister and in fact most of the House of Commons have no idea how the internet works, as the PM repeatedly talked about "media companies and social media companies that are displaying these images," as if the internet is a TV network where every site makes a conscious decision what to show. I was utterly shocked that this is the person about to (attempt to) regulate social media. Britain need to get its act together, because it is starting to look more desperate and fanatical than the US, which is a very low bar to set indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider that restraining orders are government sanctioned, and enforced censorship. As are all the laws related to slander and libel. Pretty much all the fraud laws too. And anything related to trade secre
Re: (Score:3)
There is no functional requirement for any speech to be restricted. Laws against slander and libel are ineffective and constantly abused. Look up the British Chiropractic Association for an example of how these harm us all.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this hypothetical scenario, and let's be clear that I do not know you in any way - this is just for an example:
Say I call your wife a whore, and spread a rumor that she is sleeping around. Say I use facebook to spread this rumour. Then I go further and incite violence against her via twitter.
Where in this hypothetical scenario should the state step in and stop me?
You can probably step in and stop me via a lawsuit (slander?) but then anonymous or 4chan gets involved. Should the state step in there?
Re: (Score:2)
The GP is claiming all censorship should be banned. So a slander lawsuit wouldn't be an option.
No censorship means absolute freedom of speech, no holds barred; as long as it's not physical, it cannot be banned.
The guy and his wife will just have to accept the lies and violence with their only option being verbal response (GLWT).
The only time a state would be able to step in is after a physical crime occurred; after the violence.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep that is kind of where I was trying to get at. Some censorship is good. To claim that "some censorship" means "no freedom of speech" is a slippery slope fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My point is, without recourse to censorship you will be without protection from slander or threat or organisation of violence against you.
And 4chan has been known to mess things up for individuals before.
I believe my point stands.
Re: (Score:3)
The definition of child porn is also open to quite a bit of debate in some societies.
The problem I have with any kind of censorship is the definition of the things that should be censored. Invariably, you'll end up in a mess. Where do you draw the line? Legal texts are rarely "kinda-sorta-maybe", things are legal or illegal, but that doesn't always apply easily to the real world
Re:Restriction of speech is still necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "legitimate censorship". I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts. I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
I
Re: (Score:2)
I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts.
That's sort of odd considering some of the things you said in other parts of your comment. Unless I somehow misunderstood you, of course.
I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
What? It's censoring information/content. I'd say that it is indeed censorship (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). And the fact that someone did something illegal to make it doesn't make it not censorship to censor it.
Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal.
Whether or not it should be illegal is subjective, I think. However, it is still censorship to suppress such speech, even if it is ille
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is never right. I believe I have, in these two posts, refuted every case of it to some degree. It is not necessary for society, it is not healthy for society, and we're nearing a time when those who support it wi
Re: (Score:3)
>Banning of child pornography
Numerous studies have shown that banning child pornography possession actually exacerbates the problem of child mollestation and worse the problem of production of child pornography (by making the possession illegal you drive up the price - much like drug prohibition - thus making the industry more attractive). Currently some of the greatest security minds alive are getting very rich building smuggling networks for child pornography. The money is there because it's illegal. I
Re: (Score:2)
So production of child pornography is illegal, but financing production of child pornography and profiting from it is perfectly fine?
Re: (Score:2)
In warfare, preventing your enemies from communicating amongst themselves is desirable for a winning strategy. Imagine if it was impossible for al-qaeda to communicate with each other all throughout the 90's. 9/11 would never have happened.
A crude example, I know, but it goes to demonstrate that there is some legitimacy in preventing hostile communication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wait, did youreally just justify one morally bankrupt idea with another?
If they're inciting violence, deal with them via other legal avenues. Free speech has never been fully respected when it comes to the excuse of "inciting violence," so there is no need to add new methods of censorship. At least if you have to charge them with something there is due process. Three strikes is just hearsay bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
The "three strikes law" is a declaration of (moral) bankruptcy of a legal system. Essentially, it means that the prisons where people are locked away do not make them any better. They serve no purpose other than keeping people locked up for a predetermined time. They do not even make any attempt at resocializing prisoners.
Re: (Score:2)
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. -- Captain Picard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, the government shouldn't suppress people's ability to express their political opinions but they can and should restrict people's communications when it comes to planning crimes that cause harm to other people, such as openly planning violent riots.
Ah, I see you've spent too much time watching Minority Report. Planning is irrelevant - only the act of doing matters. Just like I can plan to go ask out the hot blonde at the bar for months but it doesn't mean jack if I don't actually DO it.
There isn't really a question of where to draw the line - you wait until someone actually commits a crime, then you either A) stop them in progress or B) punish / kill them after the fact. You cannot arrest someone for something that hasn't happened yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right.
It's like assurances that your teacher wears a condom at all times when they teach. The mere presence of the "qualifier" indicates something has gone wrong. The government of England has no business spending more than 30 seconds considering these actions.
Re: (Score:2)
And even those 30 seconds can be spent a lot better.
Re: (Score:3)
The Chinese seem to be enjoying the fine tradition of internet hyperbole moreso than usual. The PM did not in fact suggest there was any plan to shut off social media whatsoever. What he did say was [zeropaid.com]
Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior. We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.
Jesus was tried and crucified as a criminal, too. The definition of a "criminal" varies from country to country. Don't you think the protesters in Iran weren't labeled as "criminal", too? Or the people who toppled the regimes in Egypt and Tunisia? The guys in China's KP probably can't stop laughing - with talk like this, Western political "leaders" reveal their calls for human rights in China and elsewhere as what they really are: soapbox speeches. Granted, the riots in UK didn't have a political dimensi
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose the Moors Murderers and the Yorkshire Ripper were really freedom fighters, and the evil UK government censored them by locking them away in secure mental institutions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the European Convention, as I read it, rights to not extend to the extent that they seriously impinge upon the rights of others. I am just asking JustAnswer about my rights. What we need in the decision process is accountability: everybody who makes a decision or interpretation of weight should write down their decision or interpretation and sign it and the trail of authority should be available for inspection under Freedom of Information laws.
Re: (Score:2)
translates to: exploring possibilities to bend the current legal system in order to implement what is seen fit
violence, disorder and criminality
translates to: any situation that (seriously) endangers the steadily growing flow of (financial) resources from top to bottom
Or would you (publicly, here, on slashdot) state that you believe what a politician says? (Remeber: How do you realize that a politician is lying ? -- His/her lips are moving).
CC.
Re: (Score:3)
They're looking at whether it would be right.
Meaning: we've decided to do it and are looking at a way to have the bill pass; trust us we're good at that. If all else fail there's always the good ol' and very effective "think of the children" card to play.
They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.
Meaning: we'll spy on and block each and every communication we don't like and throw you in jail for it, preventively. Then you'll enjoy working your way through the courts to challenge the administrative decision.
Re: (Score:2)
You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.
That would be succeeding in communism not fascism.
The 'Standard & Poors of Fascism' would probably be the USA; A fascist state can be democratic, its defining feature is putting the interests of corporations ahead of the interests of its people. I think that describes modern America, yes?
Re:China is COMMUNIST (Score:4, Insightful)
China has called itself Communist since 1949, but like most "Communist" countries, it hasn't really BEEN communist for most of that time.
Re:China is COMMUNIST (Score:4, Insightful)
The point where it was NOT just state capitalism. That's about all that the USSR ever achieved as well.
Replacing many corrupt employers with ONE corrupt employer is not communism at all, not even a little bit and that's all that any of the so-called "communist states" ever did.
True communism can only be anarchic, which rules them all out. The very concept demands that the means of production be owned AND MANAGED BY the people who DO the production.
You may agree or not agree with that ideal - but it's a simple fact that no so-called "communist state" has ever achieved it, or even really tried to.
Re: (Score:2)
Suffice to say, none of the so-called "Communist" countries that have yet existed were anything like what Marxism was (rather unrealistically) supposed to be like. Further, many of them only used the title of "Communist" nominally, as denotation of a goal. For example, the S in USSR stands for socialist. They used the term interchangeably during and after Stalin, but really they are not. China only came about being afte
now you know (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Syria said they approved of Cameron's plans to place controls on social media too.
There was this great dream that somehow opening up closed, dictatorial societies like China and the countries in the Middle East to free flows of capital would inevitably lead to the spread of democracy. What's actually happened is that rather than freedom flowing to them, corruption and authoritarianism is flowing from them.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit, corruption has been here before already, it's not like we had to learn anything there. What changed maybe is that nobody bothers to hide it anymore. What for, people don't really care anymore anyway.
Well, not like they had a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Syria said they approved of Cameron's plans to place controls on social media too.
There was this great dream that somehow opening up closed, dictatorial societies like China and the countries in the Middle East to free flows of capital would inevitably lead to the spread of democracy. What's actually happened is that rather than freedom flowing to them, corruption and authoritarianism is flowing from them.
Don't be a moron, it is perfectly clear what countries like China, Iran and Syria are doing: they are trying to conflate criminal behaviour with free speech and legitimate protest. Countries like the UK know the difference perfectly well.
Re: (Score:2)
Like slavery... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.
That's a true position according to the laws of discussion. But the main point, IMHO, is that UK government was humiliated by this comparison, and frankly, they deserved it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anything prevents them from criticizing them (even if they are "hypocrites).
You are not helping! (Score:2, Insightful)
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Seriously, how far down the road are you when you get that kind of support from China.
Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.
From Australia (Score:3, Insightful)
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Oh the Nazi's would have loved our immigration politics over the last decade or so.
Re:You are not helping! (Score:4, Insightful)
Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.
More likely, North Korea praises your criminal retributions law, expelling families from their homes because one of their members is accused (not convicted) of participating in the riots - http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/aug/13/england-riots-coalition-response?cat=politics&type=article [guardian.co.uk].
Re: (Score:3)
Expelling familes from *their* homes?
Not at all - they are homes owned by the taxpayers. If you want to be secure in a home, two useful steps would be:
1) Get a job so you can pay for your own home, instead of taking money out of the pockets of working families.
2) Don't be a criminal shitbag stealing from and killing those who pay for "your" home.
Re: (Score:2)
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Yes, because people were flocking to emigrate to Nazi Germany, so that is an excellent comparison.
thank you Mr. Cameron (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorists, dissidents... the names and countries change, the effect is pretty similar.
The Onion? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
China has Balls (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're right. That's more a message to their own people rather than any western government. Kinda like "See, they do it too. And if you think the free world's so much better than our system, you should now notice that what we do is good since they do it too".
Re: (Score:3)
What I find particularly interesting about recent events is that Gadaffi claimed that "Irish and Scottish mercenaries helped tame the riots".
http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE77A0AW20110811 [reuters.com]
Aside from the utterly laughable lunacy of such a claim, what this means is that his followers and people are so utterly disconnected from reality that they genuinely believe the rest of the world is like a bigger Libya. This is one area where the internet has a hugely positive effect - by normal Libyans sittin
Cameron needs to go back to democracy school (Score:2)
I'm shocked that any western leader would not know by heart, that censorship is a no no. And is't barely 6 months Egypt's dictator was lamented for doing the exact same thing.
I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either. This reminds me of when Bush's war on terror gave Putin an excuse to wage his own war on terror in Chechnya.
When will our leaders learn that merely being elected doesn't make you an automatic "Good Guy" in the eyes of the wor
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're wrong in assuming that wasn't their goal from the outset. This is a PR nightmare for the Conservatives, and one I have a hard time believing the Chinese didn't foresee. They're a whole lot smarter than they let on.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the CCP gives half a shit about Cameron. This is a self-serving statement. Domestically, it should demonstrate that the "free" world isn't better than China, there's no difference, they do the same. Externally, it should be something like "Pot? Calling me black?"
Perfect theme for Slashdot (Score:3)
Oh come on... (Score:3)
Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.
Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.
The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.
I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.
Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.
Groupthink (Score:3)
Did anyone notice the unintended irony of the word "groupthink" in the Global Times article?
The economic and social turmoil in the US, Britain and France might trigger a worldwide groupthink and introspection on the boundaries of democracy and freedom of speech.
An open letter to David Cameron's parents (Score:5, Informative)
But too true.
http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/ [nathanieltapley.com]
China didn't praise anything here (Score:3, Informative)
1984 (Score:3)
Just until the Olympics is finished (Score:3)
England (officially London, but events are spread all over the place) hosts the 2012 Olympics and the government must be scared spitless that there will be a repeat of last weeks "minor difficulties" either during or in the run-up to the games, when all the world's media will be present and reporting live. They don't really care that a bunch of shops got burned and others looted, sicne there's no election for some years - but they do care about their world image.
I think we can therefore say fairly accurately that there will be massive restrictions on the freedoms that citizens have, to ensure there is no possibility of any disruptions to the two weeks of running and jumping next summer (plus the paralymics, of course). The only question is: how much of that security clampdown will ever make it into the press?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The single currency is a german experiment, no-one else has an inherent desire for it, only a partial inclination as they are sold the benefits by the german financial controllers.
The rest of europe knows that german government has not given up on the idea of german control of europe, but since they lost the war they have to resort to other means.
It's still not working. Jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war but europeans don't actually want to be that unified.
I've no beef against germans or germany - if th
Re: (Score:2)
Europe has too much of a history to be easily united. Too many centuries old animosities, too many things happened and are still happening to overcome them easily. The worst part is that in the EU parliament, everyone's trying to grab the biggest piece of the cake for his or her country instead of trying to find out what they could accomplish united, against the rest of the world (economically, not militarily). Europe could have a very, very strong economy, there are some of the strongest economies of the p
Re: (Score:3)
You ARE aware that Germany is one of the big proponents of the Euro and the whole "European Union" thing, yes? And that they are relying to a very major portion of their foreign trade on the rest of Europe? The very last thing Germany would do right now is to sever ties with the rest of the continent, that would probably be economic suicide.
Germany is one of the big payers right now, that much is correct. Odd, it seems, that Merkel was one of the biggest proponents when the question arose whether Greece sho
Re: (Score:3)
I can actually hear Palpatine: Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take North Korea's place at my side!
Re: (Score:2)
They do it openly and bluntly. We do it secretly and sneakily.
I dunno, I'd prefer the former. At least people would more easily know how they're being imprisoned.