Chinese Gov't To Tighten Internet Controls Even Further 162
jfruh writes "The new Chinese leadership released a document outlining its vision for the country Friday, and most of the attention was paid to reforms, like plans to loosen state control of the economy and end the one-child policy. But when it comes to the Internet, the Chinese Communist government is doubling down on its restrictive policies. The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things, and plans to bolster its regulatory systems and increase the scope of their legal authority."
Posting to undo accidental mod (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the first post?? Oo
Re: (Score:2)
My megahertz.
The trend in China (Score:5, Interesting)
More economic freedom, social freedom is mixed, and continuing or tighter political control.
It will be interesting to see if they continue the trend of relatively more economic freedom into the future since the new leadership is harkening back to the old ways. "Where are the true communists?"
Re: (Score:3)
The true communists were never in government. Just like any idealists who actually strive to live their ideals, going into governance is seen as at best an unwanted duty and the first step towards compromise. The opportunists like Mao had no such qualms.
Re: (Score:3)
They move from dictatorship of the party to dictatorship of money without the detour to democracy. They're kinda more efficient than we are, we took that detour.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick couple of questions. What's a communist to you? If it has something to do with authoritarian statism, I'd really appreciate a more detailed answer. Do you think that North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and China are all communist? If so, could you detail the similarities between them that make them communist?
Thanks.
Also re your sig: I'm committed to seeing you committed. Haha.
Re: (Score:3)
Quick couple of questions. What's a communist to you? If it has something to do with authoritarian statism, I'd really appreciate a more detailed answer. Do you think that North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam and China are all communist? If so, could you detail the similarities between them that make them communist? Thanks.
The hallmark of a capitalistic society and the antithesis of communism is property rights. A capitalistic society is founded on the principal of individual ownership while communism is founded on the principal of collective ownership. Property rights in China are inconsistently enforced and they basically don't exist in Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea.
Intellectual property is even less likely to be coherently codified and respected in these countries. It is only occasionally enforced in China and basically n
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. Thanks for the response. So, communism is defined by the lack of property rights and the collective ownership of property? If property is defined as those things that are not for personal use, then I see your point (though I think that the definition is still too simplistic).
Let's look at the USA. The USA must be communist! Why? Because large chunks of the economy are owned by the collective (one or other level of the government). This is not just land, roads, and institutions (e.g. libraries),
at least they're honest (Score:5, Insightful)
tfs:
The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things
This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.
Re:at least they're honest (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.
Every country has it's bogeymen (a/k/a government excuses). Here it's "terrorism", over there I think "social disharmony" or some such . The funny thing about manure is that it smells the same wherever you go.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every country has it's bogeymen (a/k/a government excuses). Here it's "terrorism",
Bogeymen are generally considered imaginary and don't have a body count. That isn't an accurate description of terrorism in the US. It has both an existing body count and a continuing series of arrests and convictions. (Which is also a handy fact to consider when the subject of "magic rocks" comes up.)
The funny thing about manure is that it smells the same wherever you go.
There seems to be some disagreement about the identification of manure.
Re:at least they're honest (Score:5, Insightful)
If a 9/11 scale attack occurred in the US every month, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a terror attack. The degree to which we fear terrorism relative to the actual risk is way out of proportion. If someone proposed things like indefinite detention or wide scale monitoring to prevent bad driving, they'd rightly be seen as a paranoid nut.
Re:at least they're honest (Score:4, Interesting)
If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack. The degree to which people confuse the significance of random chance accidents versus deaths caused by willful human action is appalling. Indefinite detention is how prisoners of war are held. Indefinite detention isn't really appropriate for traffic incidents short of murder.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find any data to corroborate your claim. In fact, it looks like the federal government of the U.S. didn't start tracking vehicular deaths until the late 1990s, as far as all the sources I checked indicate.
Can you back up what you said?
Re: (Score:3)
Vital Statistics of the United States 1941, Page 241 [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Informative. A++++ would debate again.
Re: (Score:2)
That was gracious of you. I'm honored.
Re: (Score:3)
And indeed we seem to be putting very little effort into protecting Hawaii from Japanese sneak attacks right now.
Re: (Score:3)
hmmmm (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We need indefinite detention for sellers of Rubber Duckies. Rubber Duckiesin bath tubs have killed more people via slip and fall than 9/11 -- something MUST BE DONE!
>> Please don't take this as a tacit agreement on my part that any future False Flags need to up the ante to prove to us how much we need 1 million people involved in the "security apparatus." Stop hiring consultants from the former Stazi for instance.
wide scale monitoring to prevent bad driving (Score:2)
Every rig driver in America will soon be tracked by an electronic recorder. Proponents claim it will make the roads safer, but some wonder what else the data could be used for. [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And if you do die in a car accident, it's probably a burning Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Bogeymen are generally considered imaginary and don't have a body count.
Fortunately for us, most terrorists do indeed seem to be bogeymen.
Re: (Score:2)
I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman?
No, but if you're one of the many imaginary terrorists, you might just be a bogeyman.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A body count that, most years, kills fewer Americans domestically than lightning strikes.
Lightning averages 51 deaths a year, so a big attack can push it over. For comparison, the most recent 'major' attack at the Boston marathon achieved three deaths.
Re:at least they're honest (Score:4, Insightful)
And I think the government did more to inconvenience and harass most people after the bombing than the actual terrorists did.
Re: (Score:2)
However it could be argued that the bad guys "saved lives" because they stopped traffic and that lowered the overall death rate in Boston.
Boy, we number crunchers are a cold bunch!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By now I think the body count for our reaction to terrorism outweighs that of terrorism itself by some margin.
Re: (Score:3)
We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.
Both of which are probably nothing compared to how much we waste on 'security' and the military.
and the only defense to fear is a sense of security.
Which means that violating people's rights and spending trillions of dollars trying to stop a problem that's nearly nonexistent probably isn't a very good idea.
There is of course a balance of how much fear there is vs how much freedom people should have.
Balance? To me, freedom is the absolute top priority. Safety isn't even near the top for me.
I think people forget to be realistic and focus on the logistics of protecting our way of life.
We won't even have a way of life if we discard it for security. What happened to having principles? What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the
Re: (Score:2)
If freedom is the most important thing, Will you post your address on here ? Will you give me your full name ? WIll you give me your cell phone number? How about, would you give a crazy person a gun ?
What? That makes absolutely zero sense. I said that freedom is most important to me, and now you're asking me to waste my time posting information about myself? How does this at all relate to the government violating people's rights? Spoiler: It doesn't.
How do you define waste ?
As in... wasting money on killing people and starting pointless wars.
If you feel there's not a problem
I said that the problem is nearly nonexistent. I live in the US. The problem is nearly nonexistent.
You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like.
You clearly lack intelligence of the point I was making.
Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.
Considering that they violate peop
Re: (Score:2)
The government has your address, in some cases you cell phone, and allot of other information about you.
And? This has absolutely nothing to do with the government violating people's rights. Try to keep up.
The reason theres not a problem in the US is because of the efforts that are taken.
That's what you'd like to believe, but have no evidence of. The real reason is because of my anti-terrorist rock.
Your the one explaining your point
And you're spewing forth straw men and irrelevancies and generally misinterpreting me.
There are limits, and those limits impact the overall type of government that exists.
What's this nonsense about anarchy now? I do not believe fundamental freedoms should be infringed upon, even for safety. The end.
A government is just a group of people who agree to certain things.
And the things that they do can be seen as morally wrong. What is your point, excep
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if you get a ticket for parking your car the government mails you a ticket, as you own the car you are responsible for the ticket. Again, freedom is important, but it requires a balance to security, just as you likely don't want someone with a gun to shoot you, you just expect that the government will balance out how it controls guns. However, you seem to have allot of expectations with out any concern for how those expectations come to be put in place. (More on that below..)
Oh, and don't assume I agree with random things that the government does at present.
Re: (Score:2)
The governments freedom of information and polices towards restricting information do relate to when it violates peoples rights...
No, they don't. I said that I care most about freedom, and then you asked me completely irrelevant questions about whether or not I have the desire to give away information and weapons, which has nothing to do with the government infringing upon individual liberties. Nice try.
its your obligation to prove that removing the efforts would improve social welfare
What!? The burden of proof isn't on the ones who impose these restrictions and waste taxpayer dollars, but upon the people who just want the government to leave people alone? Interesting. I have a magical rock that keeps a grand majori
Re: (Score:2)
We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.
And their entire annual budgets combined wouldn't pay for a single nudie scanner even though the issues they are working on are far more likely to kill someone than the terrorists. They also don't hole people up searching them for items that might attract lightning. They don't even have the power to command you to turn your cellphone off while driving.
Its also worth noting that if a terrorist were to get a nuclear bomb, or just a dirty bomb, they could kill an entire city and prevent that city from being liveable.
And if they get a nude bomb, everyone will be embarrassed. If they get a prize in their Cracker Jacks, they might be briefly entertained. ONE of those 3 is ac
Re: (Score:2)
What does the eternal conflict between Pakistan and India have to do with terrorists getting their hands on a functional nuke in the U.S.?
Re: (Score:2)
bogeyman (bmæn) —n , pl -men a person, real or imaginary, used as a threat, esp to children Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
An entirely appropriate use of the term in this case
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike China, the USA is a democracy, and is built on the premise that such questions should be up to the general populace to decide. This cannot happen if information is kept hidden from the public, for no better reason than "such information might aid terrorists!". At a minimum, t
Re: (Score:2)
Just because I can hit random animals over the head with the rock and call them tigers doesn't mean the rock protects me from actual tigers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be some disagreement about the identification of manure.
No, I think it pretty much identifies the ter'rism bogieman and people who blog like 100% of assassinations and arrests are all 100% accurate and that this small sample reflects that 100% of the reports and scares were justified.
Since lightning kills 10x more people, we need to strip search everyone for wires and spend $4 trillion putting up lightning rods ever 10 meters or so -- just to have a commensurate threat/response profile.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, I have seen some people who are indeed dangerous at the tee. They keep forgetting to yell 'fore' and then they unleash a ballistic projectile on a nearly random trajectory. It's really just a matter of time before someone dies.,/p>
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia proved communism doesn't work, here we are in the US proving that capitalism is failing at least for citizens. At least with communism you have corrupt officials to worry about, here it's corrupt officials and corporations that trample the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Further up I asked cold fjord to define communism for me. I'll ask the same for you. What do you think it is? If you think that North Korea, Cuba, China, and Vietnam (and the former USSR) are (and were) communist, could you explain what makes them all communist? Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.
No, the US is equally up front about that, you just doubt the motive.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the US is equally up front about that
So the Snowden revelations about domestic surveillance were old news?
Re: (Score:1)
The US is up front about its surveillance and intelligence being directed against terrorism.
As to the Snowden leaks, a lot of that ground was covered in 2006 or before.
Re: (Score:2)
What they are not up front about is the surveillance of all citizens of the US and how that data is used and shared among other acronym groups, who shouldn't have access to this data any more than the NSA should. If you are wondering what I am talking about watch Clapper's response to Wyden about phone data, and come back here and say the NSA is up front about what it is doing...
They aren't up front about shit, if they are lying to their own citizens about their activity.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.
No, the US is equally up front about that, you just doubt the motive.
You discover motive by examining how the term "terrorist" is defined.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And that definition seems to be sticking pretty close to terrorism, not "terrorism."
Re: (Score:2)
...so for just one example: you think anyone opposed to hydrofracking for any reason (ie, including "nuclear is more efficient") is a legitimate terrorist? Because the DHS does:
http://www.post-gazette.com/legal/2012/04/30/Anti-fracking-group-adds-claims-to-surveillance-suit/stories/201204300191 [post-gazette.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably read that again more carefully. The allegation in it is that a contractor to a state government agency alleged that the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition could be a threat of some type. It doesn't appear either that the US DHS was involved, or that the threat assessment originated from the state DHS.
There really isn't much in the story to judge about the conduct of the organization that is suing so I have no idea how they actually behave. It is probably a stretch to consider them terro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this why you love the GOP over the Democrats? They're pretty honest in comparison, if recent history is any indication.
Re: (Score:3)
Is this why you love the GOP over the Democrats? They're pretty honest in comparison, if recent history is any indication.
Tbh I haven't seen much of a distinction here. I think it's very notable that the repubs have been flaming Obama over any little perceived goof, but they've been completely mum about all of the NSA stuff. I think dems and repubs agree on this issue. Dems have been more guilty recently because Obama is in office, but repubs were more guilty before because Bush was in office.
Generally I lean Dem although my internal compass has been changing recently. But in this issue I can't find any safe harbor. Even Rand
Re: (Score:3)
Support the EFF, but you're missing some major points here. This is not a bipartisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat. It has divided parties and in many ways that is a good thing. It stomps out the party line and lets people find a common ground of interest not pandering to a lobby.
There are plenty of Republicans up in arms about this. One quite visible has been Sensenbrenner who authored the Patriot Act and saying they are deliberately abusing the spirit of the Act, which was codified to directly av
Re: (Score:2)
Support the EFF, but you're missing some major points here. This is not a partisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat.
very true, point taken about Stensenbrenner and Paul. I will follow the issue more closely. Perhaps even vote for Paul if he runs for president! Not that it would make much of a diff because I'm in CA and it will go Dem regardless.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're completely up front about who they are.
Yea, right. Everything is carefully cloaked in terms of social stability and order. It's just a slightly different flavored hypocrisy than what you're used to.
I'm not here to whitewash the US's sins, but to point out that once again, we see the double standard of ignoring comparable sins in China.
Re: (Score:2)
What we have in China is the government being upfront to want to protect itself - its own social stability and order - from its people. They're the king, they do what they want, for their own protection.
No. That social stability and order is allegedly for the sake of their people. I don't see it being any more transparent an excuse than the terrorism excuse is in the US.
To make things even worse for the US, the US was supposed to be better than that. At least that's what the (public) education system tells us, that the US was formed because it didn't like the tyrannies and empires of old.
Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.
Sure hypocrisy is deeply annoying because it means a lot of "Do as we say, not as we do" behavior. But it also provides a lever for improving such behavior. If you can reveal such behavior, then you can sh
Re: (Score:2)
An American politician, and you think they will feel shame?
Shame here is not an internal emotion, but the act of outing a public figure's failings.
Also, social stability in China is a far more dangerous thing than all the terrorist attacks in the history of the US.
I see the rationalizations are still kicking in. One doesn't need the current Chinese government in order to have Chinese social stability any more than one needs the current espionage agencies in the US to prevent terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, external vs internal threat.
Ok, why does that matter? Especially since so many claimed terrorism threats in the US are actually internal (such as the "militia" movement of the 90s or some ecoterrorist stuff)?
Again, we see the double standard. For some reason, it's better to not even try for a free society than to try and at some point fail.
Where do "we" see that? I didn't say it's better to not try. I'm saying that the supposedly good guy turning bad is worse than a bad guy being bad.
Right there for example. There's the double standard. There should be no lowering of moral standards for someone because they're considered "bad guys" by someone.
Further, the Chinese government doesn't actually present itself as being a "bad guy". That's a moral judgment by someone else. They're just as much a "good guy" in the
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are.
Gotta love evil when it's upfront about itself, right? Right??
Re: (Score:2)
tfs:
The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things
This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.
Oh, come now. There're many reasons you can give, the American public is very receptive to not only "terrorist prevention" but also "religious freedom" [1], not to mention "right to bear arms" - "stand your ground" is a great example of using this freedom effectively to justify many actions [2].
And don't forget "about the children" - it's very easy to promote your agenda in the name of children, especially if they're not yet born. The personhood movement hasn't yet been successful yet [3] - but give them
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.
If Snowden had never released those documents, be honest, nobody in the general public would have noticed PRISM. The reason nobody would've noticed is the NSA isn't hauling people off to prison. The people in China are well aware of their government's censorship and of the police state. In China, websites actually are blocked. In China, people publishing material that is critical of the government are actually thrown in jail for it.
not coincidence (Score:1)
Call me a cynic, but it seems like more than coincidence that China would tighten the reins on Internet use at the same time as they publicly announce relaxing the one child policy.
Sounds like a government becoming even more authoritarian, but throwing the people a bone to distract from the serious issues..
Congrats, China, you're learning how to be repressive, American style!
Re: (Score:3)
it seems like more than coincidence that China would tighten the reins on Internet use at the same time as they publicly announce relaxing the one child policy. Sounds like a government becoming even more authoritarian, but throwing the people a bone to distract from the serious issues.
The one child policy is a much bigger deal than a bone.
Re: (Score:1)
So, tell us more about how you've never had a dog (and/or don't understand metaphors)?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bit of a weird strawman. I didn't say anything about the internet being more of a big deal. I was saying that bones (in this metaphor, the being allowed more than one child thing) are a very deal to dogs. And they are also very good at being distracting from more serious issues like someone about to lock you into a room.
The internet thing isn't about how easy it is to get around technical barriers, it's more about how you can be punished if you are discovered (hint: it's not difficult to detect tha
Re: (Score:2)
Of course its not a coincidence. China is run by centralized authoritarian government that carefully plans policies for its own good - which sometimes benefits the population as well: in general it is better to rule a prosperous peaceful country rather than a poor rebellious one.
Unlike the US, China does not pretend to be a free society. Personally I find that less distasteful than American hypocrisy. The US is still considerably less oppressive, but we are doing our best to close that gap.
Summary and article are vacuous (Score:2)
shades of whomever (Score:2)
What's wrong with social media? (Score:1)
Re: What's wrong with social media? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Because it is poison to oppressive governments, of which China is one.
A flashmob (Score:2)
A flashmob in Tiananmen Square just for 10 seconds to take a few pictures and dissolve?
That's the only thing coming to my mind.
Is that what they are afraid?
What if they went plaintext only? (Score:4, Interesting)
Imagine everybody being restricted to running iDevices where they could not install any unauthorized software on their computers.
Imagine that if it were encrypted, the government always had the private key, and the encryption was only there as a facade. The only public keys you'd have on your machine were the government's decoy keys.
Imagine if all software developers were targeted by the government with surveillance and public scrutiny to ensure that no illegal tools were being built.
It isn't that hard to foresee this future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We're practically there already. Give it another ten years and you will have a generation of programmers whose only conception of a computer is a gated iDevice, and a general public who were never able to see the difference anyway.
It's only a matter of time before ISPs introduce rate deals for those using specific devices/apps, with hard coded restrictions on what can actually be connected to. The result will be an increase in ratesa and fees for everyone who wants
Re: (Score:2)
Classic IT moment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
Re:BUT SNOWDEN (Score:5, Insightful)
That's like saying we shouldn't have had a Civil Rights movement because at least we weren't killing our minorities like Germany did; we were just oppressing them.
"Y is worse than X" does not mean that X is not also bad.
Re:BUT SNOWDEN (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, it's not wise to stop holding our government to account. I'd rather the US set an example for the worse countries by reining in its bribe-happy CIA, bringing the troops home from profit wars, closing GTMO, and stopping espionage that is not required to stop a known and imminent threat to lives.
Or I guess we can adopt the motto "Still more tolerant and less bloody than Genghis Khan!" but it doesn't quite radiate that exceptional aura.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's like saying we shouldn't have had a Civil Rights movement because at least we weren't killing our minorities like Germany did; we were just oppressing them.
"Y is worse than X" does not mean that X is not also bad.
Very true. "We're not winning the race to the bottom" is no cause for celebration.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's what he's saying; rather, he's mocking those who do make that kind of argument.
I've seen it happen on slashdot where an article about chinese censorship brings posts (that even get high moderation) that talk about how the US government is supposedly worse.
Doesn't happen a lot these days, but during the Bush years it was obligatory as part of any post about foreign government censorship on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you worry, I sprinkle it liberally all over the countries that deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Argghhh it's so confusing.
Seriously China is not the monster it once was. I'd say them relaxing their economic controls as well as the restrictions on the number of children is a huge step forward. Not to mention the economic growth the countries had due to
Re: (Score:3)
The key part of the parent comment was:
--->Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.
Vitriol is wasted on countries where you do not live. Why should the Chinese government care about the opinion of a random American? Effort should be focused where it is most likely to make a difference.
Re: (Score:1)
We're perfectly capable of hating both of them, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.
Are they? Or are they just further along in their plans? Everything that other countries are doing, your govt wants to do, and would if they thought they could get away with it. No govt is better than others, just some leashes are shorter than others.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but China is way further away than the US, and its policies have a lot less impact on me than the ones in the US. Not only because the US is a more important economy partner of my country, but also because our politicians here are mostly "monkey see, monkey do" when it comes to the US. Even aside of "treaties" (aka adhesion contracts) where they're pretty much forced to do their bidding, they tend to mimic what they see across the pond with some faithfulness that is rather terrifying.
So if China sticks
Re: (Score:3)
This is China. Communist China. You kinda expect it to be oppressive, backwards, anti-liberty and stuff. Or so my propaganda minister told me.
But in the shiny beacon of freedom, liberty and happiness for everyone that the US is, it is very shocking to read anything like that.
And yes, we really need a sarcasm tag.