China Adopts Controversial Cybersecurity Law; Experts Say It Will Hurt Businesses (techcrunch.com) 61
The Chinese government today passed new cybersecurity regulations that will put stringent new requirements on technology companies operating in the country. The proposed Cybersecurity Law comes with data localization, surveillance, and real-name requirements. From a TechCrunch report:The regulation would require instant messaging services and other internet companies to require users to register with their real names and personal information, and to censor content that is "prohibited." Real name policies restrict anonymity and can encourage self-censorship for online communication. The law also includes a requirement for data localization, which would force "critical information infrastructure operators" to store data within China's borders. According to Human Rights Watch, an advocacy organization that is opposing the legislation, the law does not include a clear definition of infrastructure operators, and many businesses could be lumped into the definition. "The law will effectively put China's Internet companies, and hundreds of millions of Internet users, under greater state control," said Sophie Richardson, Human Rights Watch's China director. HRW maintains that, while many of the regulations are not new, most were informal or only laid out in low-level law -- and implementing the measures on a broader level will lead to stricter enforcement.
Finally, China (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, China has caught up to the USA in anti-privacy and censorship. Congrats, China.
The US is making this easy (Score:1)
How is this so different from what the US government says they need to do to "keep us safe"? This is one argument against backdoors in the US. If our government can mandate this, other countries can mandate them. You could even make the argument that China is being more open about what they are doing.
Re:The US is making this easy (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this so different from what the US government says they need to do to "keep us safe"?
Ah yes, the old "Everybody does it" fallacy ... and from an AC, which is illegal in China. Look, America has some government overreach, but we have no "real name" requirement, there are no "prohibited" topics, and data localization is not required. The objectives as well as the methods differ: America's monitoring is designed to catch bad guys, not to suppress discussion or prevent the flow of information.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Until the definition of "bad guys" changes, stupid.
See if you can spot the difference:
1. Country C is censoring speech.
2. Country A might censor speech someday.
These are not the same thing, and it is absurd to suggest they are.
Re: (Score:1)
You can easily disguise Country A as Country C by also censoring the fact that you censor speech...
... and you, of course, have zero evidence that this is actually happening.
that's the problem with censorship, you can't just "do a little bit" without having the capability to do a lot more
The capability to do something, is not the same as ACTUALLY DOING IT.
I own a knife. That doesn't make me a murderer.
Re: (Score:2)
> The capability to do something, is not the same as ACTUALLY DOING IT.
This arguments works for cars and guns and knives. But pretend you had a magical pen that erased a person from existence and memory. You write their name, and they are unmade. You could claim you were never going to use this pen, or that you would document your uses, and only use it for good. But NO ONE WOULD KNOW.
Censorship is more dangerous than the magic pen, because it doesn't magically erase people, it actually erases ideas,
Re: (Score:2)
no "real name" requirement
No, just enough metadata hanging around to make the requirement trivial anyway. At least with an explicit real name requirement, the user knows they're probably being tracked and spied on. Not that that's much solace.
no "prohibited" topics
No, just topics that will get you sent to gitmo, or sued out of existence (though that's more done by shady companies than the government.) Still, not technically prohibited.
data localization is not required
True, though this is by far the most benign issue on the list, and in some ways non-localized data is a risk as well (
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this so different from what the US government says they need to do to "keep us safe"?
It is different because people in the U.S. talk about policies that require real names, and even about censoring, while in China the government has implemented real name policies and censorship.
There is a big difference between random people talking about something, and a government actuallly doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
I find China an abhorrent, awful place,
You should get some perspective. Americans are FOUR TIMES more likely to be arrested and imprisoned by their government than Chinese are. Sure, America is better if you want to publically criticize the ruling party, but in many other ways, China is better.
Know what I do about it? I don't go there.
I go there one or twice a year on business. Know what I do? I don't loudly criticize the ruling party in public. That is partly because it will get me arrested, but also because it is none of my business. As a foreigner, it is not my place to try to "
Communist dictatorship... (Score:1)
... issues censorship laws. News at 11.
Re: (Score:1)
No, the US hides what they are doing using vague language* in the Patriot Act to justify it if caught. In this particular case, the Chinese gov't is telling the world what they are doing up front.
* Other vague language possibly got Hillary off the hook. Our laws are infested with vagueness. Vagueness favors those with better lawyers. It's why more little guys go to jail for classified breaches than fat cats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China is just being more honest about what the USA already does behind the scenes. You think everything you do online isn't tracked by the NSA? Go back and reread the Snowden disclosures.
I've read the Snowden disclosures. I don't think you have.
The NSA does not require users to register with their real names and personal information on websites; they don't censor content that is "prohibited", and they don't shut down internet social media that refuse to register their users' real names.
Re: (Score:2)
[taps side of nose] That's because they already
BRB. Door.
Lopsided (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know why we don't tariff these guys. We readily allow their products and services in, yet they put up barriers to our software and services, creating lopsided trade. If we keep giving in, they'll keep doing it.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know why we don't tariff these guys. We readily allow their products and services in, yet they put up barriers to our software and services, creating lopsided trade. If we keep giving in, they'll keep doing it.
Because standard economic theory, the stuff you would have learned in Economics-101, says that protectionism and tariff wars always hurt both parties.
Re: (Score:3)
So complete supplication to an authoritarian regime is the better policy? Well fuck lets lift all the trade restrictions on North Korea / Russia / Syria, etc.. What could the possible consequences possibly be? Commerce and trade clearly trumps any other possible outcomes.
Re: (Score:1)
As others pointed out, theory and practice are often different.
For one, lopsided trade will result in lopsided cash flow, which may result in bubbles, as excess cash in narrow sectors often does. Economists still haven't figured out how to prevent bubbles, even after 400 years of them. Thus, their theories are missing some pieces or their cows are too spherical.
And Japan has some of the lowest unemployment rates in the world de
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between a product like cheap knock-off toys and an information service like Google.
One is personalized, the other isn't. I'm sure the Chinese would have absolutely no problem buying American products like clothing and DVDs.. except they have no reason to do so since they make all that shit themselves at a fraction of the cost of US producers (and then sell it to us since much of it is produced under license from US or at least western-based companies because again.. fraction of th
Re: (Score:2)
And in China, there's likely quite enough Chen Dongs that the realname policy translates quickly to "yeah... whose real name?"
Re: (Score:2)
And in China, there's likely quite enough Chen Dongs that the realname policy translates quickly to "yeah... whose real name?"
Name collisions are no more common in Chinese than they are in English. Just because their names sound the same to you, doesn't make them the same. In your example, "Dong" can be spoken with four different tones, and can be written with dozens of different hanzi.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda hate to point this out, but English has already enough common names that it's impossible to tell without some kind of official ID that a particular guy isn't actually John Smith. And with "photo of ID card" stuff there comes the issue of "whose ID card", photoshop and what-not being what they are.
BTW - here are the keys to the Internet, world (Score:1)
ok (Score:1)
It needs a real name, hmm...
me:(Type in Mark Zuckerberg)
Web: Register failed... There are already 38546 Mark Zuckerberg registered.
me: Damn it!
curso NR 10 (Score:1)