quote:U.S. lawmakers say American Internet companies have given China new ways to silence dissent in return for access to a booming market. Yahoo! Inc., for example, has been accused of helping Chinese police identify and convict a journalist who criticized human rights abuses.
quote:Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. also have been criticized for enforcing Chinese censorship guidelines.
Google's China-based service limits online searches for sensitive topics, and Microsoft shut down a Chinese user's Web log upon officials' demand.
This is not just some silly, 'data-collecting' organization like HRW accusing the PRC of misdeeds, Blayne. This is the US government leveling accusations against US companies selling products to the PRC tailor-made to aid censorship and to squelch dissent.
Explain away, please. First off I'm sure you'll point out it's American companies doing this, so pay less attention to the PRC. Second, I'm sure you'll point out that things were a lot worse in the past and they're getting better, so quit complaining. Third, I'm sure you'll cite some friends of yours from the PRC who say the Internet isn't really restricted.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Why would anyone WANT an unrestricted internet? I mean, that's just crazy talk.
Besides, you can't silence something that doesn't exist. Dissent...what dissent? I don't see any dissent.
Sure, the government's not perfect, but they're moving in the right direction. So what if a few million people die. It's growing pains.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Exactly, Bob. Only people who want to CRUSH CHINA would want such a thing. Or pro-Imperialists.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote: So one day we decide that those Chinese sons of a b*****s, are going down...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Okay for one thing A) "millions of people" don't die in China since the 60's. Sure there's a rather high rate of executions but compared to India and Russia the density per capita is reasonable for a culture that has a history of a legalist system of government.
Aside from that yes it is wrong to deny people access to the internet, though I've often heard from my sources that such efforts are pathetic at best.
Next, your right it is AMERICAN companies that are doing it and thus share equally a share of the responsibility.
Aside from that meh, with millions going online each year I seriosuly doubt the effectiveness of any deliberate attempt at internet censorship.
But ya Alter?? Whose side are you on exactly? Or are you quoting form the article? *goes and looks*
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Yes, the fact that American companies are cooperating with this is a HUGE problem. I suspect they'll find out that they can't make this work and stay within the requirements of US laws that govern our companies' interactions with foreign governments. Should be interesting to watch.
As for the Chinese government, if they get the companies to go along with blocking sites, etc., it may not stop truly computer savvy people from finding workarounds, but it very easily COULD stop free flow of information for the vast majority of users, who are there for information (perhaps), rather than for the thrill of working a computer.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote: So one day we decide that those Chinese sons of a b*****s, are going down...
Oooh. You made my day with that one, Alt.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I laughed too, Alt.
Bravo.
From what I was able to tell from the second article (which is the more informative of the pair) Yahoo didn't even know what the PRC was after when they asked for the data. What kind of information did they give the PRC? Logs?
Google & Microsoft seem to be more culpable-- restricting searches and cutting off weblogs per the request of a repressive regime.
quote:Sure there's a rather high rate of executions but compared to India and Russia the density per capita is reasonable for a culture that has a history of a legalist system of government.
Wait-- is this an EXCUSE? "China's just AVERAGE, see?"
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I can't believe no one else has said this.... Can't stop the signal
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:Okay for one thing A) "millions of people" don't die in China since the 60's. Sure there's a rather high rate of executions but compared to India and Russia the density per capita is reasonable for a culture that has a history of a legalist system of government.
Yeah, right. The 'rather high' rate is reasonble because of a legalistic background that is hardly the guiding light in PRC politics anymore. Bullcrap. Still, it's nice to know you stick so true to form. It's OK because they're China.
quote:Aside from that yes it is wrong to deny people access to the internet, though I've often heard from my sources that such efforts are pathetic at best.
Google, Yahoo, the US and PRC governments don't think so. Google, Yahoo, and other companies are selling this product...the PRC is buying it...and the US government is investigating it. It's clear to anyone who can think straight about this that the either the efforts aren't pathetic, or the PRC government is outright stupid for paying money for a pathetic product.
You can take your pick, Blayne. I imagine that must be a difficult decision for you: PRC is either censoring the Internet in a serious way, or they're stupid.
quote:Next, your right it is AMERICAN companies that are doing it and thus share equally a share of the responsibility.
Nonsense. Equal? What they're doing is despicible, helping the tyrannical PRC government to censor the free flow of information...but wait a minute, just what do American companies have an equal share of responsibility in? They don't have much to worry about if all they're helping with is this laughably pathetic, easily-circumvented attempt to censor the Internet, right?
Anyway, your position is nonsense without taking that into account. If I sell a gun to a man who says he's going to kill someone and he does, I've committed a terrible crime, yes-but do I get charged with that person's murder? Of course not.
quote:Aside from that meh, with millions going online each year I seriosuly doubt the effectiveness of any deliberate attempt at internet censorship.
Again, which is it, Blayne? The stupid, inept PRC or the calculating, oppressive PRC? Yahoo and Google-Google in particular-are not known for incompetence, belying your claim that it's somehow impossible just because lots of people go online. (Google and Yahoo are the two primary search engines people use, man-how can you possibly fail to realize that if you censor those, you're censoring a big part of the freaking Internet?!) The PRC is not known for spending money stupidly-by you, at least...belying your claim because they wouldn't pay good money for a worthless product.
Which is it? They're either oppressing their people by actively suppressing the free flow of information through the Internet, or they're stupid for buying a product advertised for that effect but that doesn't actually do it. Which is it? A straight answer, for once in your Hatrack life on this subject, Blayne.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know yet, Scott. Hopefully now that the hearings are going on, we'll learn more. I'm sure glorious China will be vindicated, and the stinking Imperialist American dogs will be exposed for yet another of their ceaseless attempts to enslave China in the modern age.
Hail China!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I sell a gun to a man who says he's going to kill someone and he does, I've committed a terrible crime, yes-but do I get charged with that person's murder? Of course not.
Actually you can be, at least in some states and depending on the circumstances.
That said, I agree with your points.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Sometimes you must go along with the system, in order to tear it down later. Let Yahoo and Google follow China's censorship rules now. Let the citizens of China see see the blocked web site messages. Give them a taste, and eventually they will want it all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Yes, the fact that American companies are cooperating with this is a HUGE problem.
I don't like the censorship of China, but objectively, I think it's clear that all countries censor the internet to a greater or lesser degree. Sometimes the censoring going on is something most Americans can agree with, sometimes it's something that most Americans can't understand.
If Yahoo, google, etc., don't sell their services to China, I'm not clear on how this meaningfully impact China's existing 'great wall', or makes China want to censor less. It seems pretty clear to me that if an American search engine isn't used now, China will just have one made if they really need one.
[ February 15, 2006, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, in the thread about this on Slashdot, several Chinese posters said that the censorship was pretty easy to get around. Of course, how often people got caught and how severe the punishment for breaking the law was wasn't mentioned. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The question is, which system will get torn down. Sure, it may be that what's left of the internet in China will promote freedom and the desire for freedom.
On the otherhand, if Billions of people are using Product A--which is the Government Controllable Browsers, and only millions of people use product B--which is the Non-Controllable Browsers, then it becomes financially more practical for the Browser companies to only make Product A, and say its up to the governments to decide if they should or should not be controlled.
Then along comes a crisis or a paranoid government or 30 which decide that they have the tools to control the internet for their people, why not use them.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
I don't think it's that surprising that Google and such are going along with PRC's rules - after all, they're in business to make money, not make a political statement. Doesn't stop it from being despicable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Okay, one can say that the US government is stupid for X reasons, every nation has a bearocracy, sometimes it acts in irrational and counter productive ways. If some organization wants censorship dispite that its easy to get around doesn't mean everyone in that spefic organization or even the entire government is legally retarded. I'm not saying censorship is right and there are complaints, www.sinodefenceforum.com they even discuss it and 1 or 2 even complain how they're not able to see they're favorite pornographic sites any more for "educational" purposes
I know one student opened up a Pro Democacy blog, and was hacked and closed down some 38 someodd times, even questioned once or twice but was never arrested. try finding an article "Wu Wei vs Officer Hu"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Blayne, why can't you say "China is attempting to be repressive but aren't very good at it"?
And what does the U.S. being "stupid" have to do with China's attempts at censorship and U.S. corporate participation in the attempts?
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Bearocracy? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm just saying if a bearocracy does something counter intuitive it isnt something thats not uncommon with many other governments. I'm not saying that the US is stupid I'm just saying that certain parts of its bearocracy certainly do something stupid every once in a while, the same could be said of a bearocracy that governs 1.3 billion people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Yes a government system inwhich the bears inefficiently rule the world and must keep expanding to cover its expanding needs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee,
Do I actually get charged with his murder? I knew you could be charged with some pretty serious stuff, but not actually the commission of murder.
-----
Storm,
They've got one made, and we're making it for them. But your point about gradual change (yours too, Stephan) is a good one and a part of me thinks this is a good thing, and wonders if we should prohibit American companies from doing this. Maybe stick a tax on them for it or something, make it less profitable.
I'm sure that an Internet savvy user could get around censorship applied to web search engines. But then again, those people already have lots more information than does the average Joe, right?
But what about the person who does a search on 'Chinese human rights violations' from within China, who doesn't know oodles about the Internet? What happens to them?
Nothing good. At best, they get locked out.
-------
Blayne,
quote:I'm not saying that the US is stupid I'm just saying that certain parts of its bearocracy certainly do something stupid every once in a while, the same could be said of a bearocracy that governs 1.3 billion people.
*sigh* Yes, yes, everyone else is doing it so it's OK. Man, under your reasoning everything is permissible, because all it takes to accept it is just looking for it being done elsewhere.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ye gods, Blayne, we know you're a China fanboi, but could you at least try to keep the angry spittle off your keyboard? It is apparently landing mainly on the delete key and removing letters that you really need. Or you could, y'know, take your time about it. Most flames are ever so much more effective if correctly spelled. It keeps the victim from getting that lovely feeling of "Ah, I'm being dissed by a complete retard - I must be doing something right."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do I actually get charged with his murder? I knew you could be charged with some pretty serious stuff, but not actually the commission of murder.
Technically you could be charged as an accessory before the fact (in older common law jusrisdictions) or as an accomplice, both of which carry the same criminal liability as the act itself, or, in some states, with the murder.
It does vary from state sto state.
Here's an overview:
Typically, conviction would require:
1.) Proof that the crime took place. 2.) Proof of an act (in this case, providing the gun) 3.) Proof of knowledge that the actor is contributing to the commission of a crime. Some states require purpose, which would mean an affirmative desire to see the act done.
If someone comes up and says, "I need a gun to go shoot someone," and you provide the gun, then you have knowledge but not purpose.
Although in some states the charge would list "accomplice to murder," the potential liability is the same. Some states would actually charge the person with the murder under the doctrine of complicity.
And at worst, they're being monitored and will be incarcerated for having the audacity to look something like that up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, so sometimes you get charged with the murder and sometimes you get charged with a crime that carries an equal penalty? Gotcha.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: By the way, in the thread about this on Slashdot, several Chinese posters said that the censorship was pretty easy to get around. Of course, how often people got caught and how severe the punishment for breaking the law was wasn't mentioned.
Keep in mind also that what a slashdot user thinks is "pretty easy to get around" is probably very different than what the average person thinks is "pretty easy to get around."
I heard somewhere that google wasn't providing Gmail in China so that they wouldn't be put in a position of having to give over records or be kicked out. Anyone hear anything else about this?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
wha? When did I flame someone, and I think I am being calm and composed here.
quote:If some organization wants censorship dispite that its easy to get around doesn't mean everyone in that spefic organization or even the entire government is legally retarded.
Thats the only thing I can think of, but that wasn't directed at anyone in particular...
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)