China Cracks Down On Mobile Messaging 58
itwbennett writes China is tightening control over mobile messaging services with new rules that limit their role in spreading news. Under the new regulations, only news agencies and other groups with official approval can publish whatever the government considers political news via public accounts. "All other public accounts that have not been approved cannot release or reprint political news," the regulations said. Users of the instant messaging services will also have to register with their official IDs, and agree to follow relevant laws.
I wonder... (Score:2)
It's to prevent infection (Score:3)
Sure, it would be easy to root out the dissenters... but that costs you a productive citizen each time you do it. If you can prevent them from becoming dissenters in the first place, you come up way ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it would be easy to root out the dissenters... but that costs you a productive citizen each time you do it.
That's what's so brilliant about state-operated labor camps. You turn productive citizens into productive prisoners. That's so much more efficient than the way we do it here in the USA, where we turn them into hardened criminals and excuses to extract tax money from the citizenry and hand it to the already wealthy.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that US prisons do employ prison labour.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that this is even news, and getting out, is a sign that the times, they are a changin... at least in China. Russia, seems to be going backward however. And the mid-east? Pffft. that never changes one way or the other.
Re: (Score:3)
They need to defeat their own extremists in Xinjiang before going around helping others. They had an attack a couple weeks ago were 100 people were killed. The fact the government is willing to acknowledge 100 deaths only means the total was most likely closer to 1000.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Be glad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It was triggered by young people being able to look abroad via the interwebs and see how people in other countries lived. So they too wanted to live in a place where their political voices could be heard. The problem was that they ignored the snake in grass ready to pounce if the central governments were weakened. Political Islam hijacked the soft revolutions; they saw it as their chance to finally exert a Nazi like control over the rest of the pop. and make them enjoy the pure hell on earth tha
Re: (Score:1)
The problem isn't the Terrorists. It i the people who do not want to look like terrorists when they are fighting terrorists. And there in lies the problem. To combat evil, you must also take on the appearances of evil. To stop people from killing you, you must sometimes kill them. And the stupid people of the world cannot tell the difference between good people acting on self preservation from evil people acting on their own view of self preservation.
So, the issue is with good people who just want to be lef
Re: (Score:1)
Peiople tolerate this when they are not otherwise suffering Materially. Arab Spring didn't get triggered when the general population is well fed, they triggered when people have problems living on at the conditions at the time (because they are broke?)
Oh, I don't know if that's universally true. Consider the American revolution. The US colonies were, by all accounts, reasonably well off under British rule, and many who agitated for revolution arguably had the most to lose, being the most prominent and wealthy of the citizens.
Granted, you could argue that desperately poor people tend to have little to lose, and perhaps are more likely to revolt. But it's also true that unrest is often fomented by the more idealistic tendencies of the well-educated. Th
Re:Be glad (Score:5, Insightful)
As an Argentinian (if you know our recent history): No, people tolerate everything. People don't "uprise" spontaneously. People don't go out and protest.
They don't.
I've learned that ALL protests are organized by someone with a political motivation. Nothing more.
We're in a situation worse than what we were in 2001. And people just carry on with their lives every day. Humans are tame criatures, they will take absolutely everything and accept it. Look at the life in the Middle East for example. Iran, once a westernized, modern country, taken back to the middle ages by the muslims. And people didn't protest.
The Khmer Rouge killing everything and everyone. People didn't protest.
You'll see people oppressed all over the world. In third world nations, and in the US too. And guess what? People don't do anything. The ones in power take it all.
Re: (Score:3)
Governments have become very good at making sure people don't rise up, and if they do protest that the protests are ignored and ineffective. It's very dangerous because now the only way to effect any kind of political change is via the mass media or via violence. In countries where the mass media is heavily controlled, that just leaves violence.
It's the same everywhere. In the UK 2 million people protested against the invasion of Iraq, and they went ahead anyway. Literally the only thing that would have sto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, in china (Score:2)
They need Facebook Messenger .. (Score:3)
... because everyone on Facebook has to use their real name and stuff.
Alternative messaging (Score:1)
This won't last (Score:3, Funny)
The supreme court is bound to overturn it as a flagrant violation of the 1st amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a joke. I was implying that since the US jurisdiction now applies everywhere; for example, claims a right to enforce its own laws on citizens even related to behavior or activities occuring outside the US, the US federal courts have held that search warrants can be issued to seize data overseas, the government attempts to collect income tax on US-based companies worldwide revenue, and foreigners who never set foot in the US have been extradited due to violations of US law.
That the constitutiona
where we went wrong with the internet (Score:1)
It has been clear for a long time that governments want to use the internet for mass scale surveillance(usa, lesser extent many others), control(china, russia, middle east), and generally Orwellian things.
It is LONG past time to invent dead-simple to use programs and protocols that are end to end encrypted and take control out of the hands of governments and put it back where it belongs: with the people.
It should not be possible for the NSA to tap all communications, because it should all be strongly encryp
Re: (Score:3)
While you're at it, we should go to a mesh network. The internet was originally conceived tob e able to
withstand a nuclear attack by routing around damage and "finding" the path from point A to point B
by whatever path possible. Unfortunately we've discovered that it's faster to have internet backbones
than it is to have to have 50 hops to get to your destination. Encryption might help a little but what we
really need to do is figure out a way to have a more peer to peer system so there aren't bottlenecks
wh
FCC (Score:1)
Censorship Useful, but Risky. (Score:3)
This would help cut down on the stupidity that "news" outlets in the US spread to the uneducated and or uninformed population
Yes. Freedom of Speech, as conceived in many nations, includes the freedom to speak irresponsibly. These nations may be destroyed by that freedom, which creates an ecosystem of mostly-stupid ideas that it is very, very hard for wiser minds to change. Or they may be saved by it, if nations such as China tighten their grip on information far enough that they overly limit the free flow of innovative ideas and legitimate idea-generating-and-analyzing debate.
There are people on both sides of the political spe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best argument against Democracy is to have a 5 minute conversation with the average citizen.
iMessage? (Score:2)
Does iMessage run afoul of this?
If the encryption is good (and China doesn't have the pull to get access as the NSA does) then maybe Apple products DO pose a security threat .... to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the Internet (Score:2)
Before the Internet, Chinese in their villages wondered what was happening in the world. After the Internet, Chinese in their villages looked at their mobile phones and wondered what is happening in the world.
For all those who complain about the NSA (Score:3, Interesting)
Take a look at what real oppression is. The NSA is still evil, wrong and violating the rights of others, but you are allowed to complain about it publicly and privately all you want. You can even openly advocate seceding from your own nation, spread groundless conspiracy theories, and call your politicians a manifestation of the anti-christ, and the government will virtually ignore you and let your kooky little 90's looking website stating all of the above remain on the web. Doing this on talk radio or on cable news can make you millions of dollars per year.
Do this in China against the Chinese government and you'll be tracked down and be executed or imprisoned.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds a lot like what Google wanted to achieve (Score:1)
This all works (Score:2)
As long as China continues to maintain an exponential growth in the standard of living.
People accept that tradeoff: freedom for increased prosperity.
Where it breaks down is in the eventual slowdown of exponential growth, which WILL occur.
At that point, the agreement weakens. Why maintain the line if the old promises no longer apply?
That's when things get dicey, and why the Chinese leadership is so paranoid.
Unfortunately, cracking down will, long run, just fuel the fire.