Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China Views Internet As "Controllable"

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the and-so-it-is dept.

Censorship 185

Radcliffe_V writes "According to a leaked cable via Wikileaks, the Chinese government views the internet as very controllable, despite western views otherwise. The New York Times article also sheds light on how involved the Chinese government is in cyber attacks against US assets and companies such as Google."

cancel ×

185 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Of course they do... (3, Insightful)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445894)

Communist states view everything as being controllable.

Eheh, been following the news lately? (3, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446010)

WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national? Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites? Which nation is putting presure on private companies to follow its agenda without any laws being written? Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?

Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446024)

WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national? Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites? Which nation is putting presure on private companies to follow its agenda without any laws being written? Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?

Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to.

When each of your questions have multiple legitimate answers you're conveniently ignoring in your blunt (and quite frankly predictable) implications against the US, one has to wonder if you actually had a point to begin with.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (5, Insightful)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446086)

I think he forgot the most important part:

"Which nation also actively preaches that doing all above is wrong, when it's someone else doing it".

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446284)

which nation doesnt do this?

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446320)

which nation or which government? I don't condone such activities!

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446564)

This is a discussion with anti-government leftist loonies. If you're going to go with the argument "I don't agree with the stereotype of my race/nation/... and generally hate groupthink" you're just not going to get anywhere. Of course US citizens believe in free speech : no "enemy" ideology has ever marginally sucessfully attacked anyone on American soil (with the exception of islam). Europeans have been conquered, massacred, taxed into the ground, conquered again, genocidally massacred some more, and so on by enemy ideologies, and so they do NOT believe in free speech.

That does not mean that residents of these countries don't "all believe in free speech" : they don't see either the plus or the minus of free speech (the minus being "potentially leeds to genocidal treatment of certain groups - sometimes even the majority - of the population"), and so they "want more stuff/rights/whatever".

Please don't be confused with this being an actual conviction, very few residents of either countries will support free speech if it means an attack close to home (e.g. Europe, scene for 3-4 9/11's is becoming less tolerant to muslims by the minute - and frankly - with good reason).

If you next say that you're a muslim, but that you'd still like countries to outlaw stoning women, and if that means that sharia dies, then it dies, leftist heads will explode. It'll take them five minutes to pick up enough pieces to shout the only reply they have : racist ! If you truly don't subscribe to groupthink - you might as well vote Bush (I'm sure junior's junior will be coming on stage any minute now), since you're going to get yelled at for it anyway.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446726)

This is profound. Mod Parent up +5 Retarded.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (5, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446118)

Yes, well, an elected politician can say anything they like in the U.S. You might have heard of free speech. Which nation prevents their Nobel Prize winner from receiving his prize think it constitutes intervention in their internal affairs?

The U.S. is not stopping you from reading Wikileaks. If you mean Amazon weenying out to a Senator, please take that up with the Senator or Amazon. Last I heard, he wasn't the government. If you are referring to PayPal, they gave a decent reason. Your don't like it because you believe there is a conspiracy behind it. So put up or shut up.

Your third question is a variant of the second. You clearly have no idea how the U.S. government works, but feel free to insinuate conspiracy theories to your hearts content. You have that freedom in the U.S.

Your third question is mere belief, nothing more. As if the Chinese, Russian, Pakistan, or Saudi govenments have no reason to put a stopper on Wikileaks. Near as I can make out, all Wikileaks is doing is making the U.S. look good and other governments not so good.

So, why would the U.S. want to stop Wikileaks when it is only underscoring what State and Defense have been saying for years?

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446262)

Near as I can make out, all Wikileaks is doing is making the U.S. look good and other governments not so good.

Please make out harder [salon.com] ...

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;
(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;
(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");
(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";
(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;
(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;
(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;
(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,
(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

amn108 (1231606) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446378)

Word.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447016)

because salon.com is well known for its impartial news stance!

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (2, Insightful)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446280)

The U.S. is not stopping you from reading Wikileaks.

Not because they haven't tried, but because their power to do so has been intentionally limited.

If you mean Amazon weenying out to a Senator, please take that up with the Senator or Amazon. Last I heard, he wasn't the government.

Yes, he is.

If you are referring to PayPal, they gave a decent reason.

I must have missed the decent reason part of their explanation.

Your don't like it because you believe there is a conspiracy behind it. So put up or shut up.

A conspiracy, eh? Dude, go to Lieberman's website. He's gleefully taking credit for it.

Near as I can make out, all Wikileaks is doing is making the U.S. look good and other governments not so good.

I know really. The newspapers have had a few days to dig through it now and this is all they can come up with? Somebody was compared to "Batman and Robin"? Geez what a bunch of pansies.

So, why would the U.S. want to stop Wikileaks when it is only underscoring what State and Defense have been saying for years?

  1. Because they're not smart enough to know what's for their own good in the long run?
  2. Because they've made a habit of talking-behind-backs and have now lost face?
  3. Because diplomats' careers depend on not being the one to take the blame when blame needs to be taken?
  4. Because they know something is coming in future releases that we don't know yet?

I don't know the answer to that one either.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447104)

"If you are referring to PayPal, they gave a decent reason. "

You mean 'Paypal forces Wikileaks to chose a different email address?'

They should use a Luxembourg email address and if Paypal gets funny, they have a bank here that they can sue senseless if they refuse service to somebody because a country in a different continent doesn't like its views.
I'd really like to see our rulers and justice try to paddle themselves out of this.
 

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446122)

WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national?

Canada? I am not aware of anyone in the US, except Palin who is not an elected official.

Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites?

Huh? Whut? If you mean the gov't telling its employees to stay off wikileaks, your argument is weak. As a private individual, I am not restricted, except for some illegal activities.

Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?

What site is the US gov't taking down with a DDOS?

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446638)

And that moron is not elected either

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446146)

WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national? Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites? Which nation is putting presure on private companies to follow its agenda without any laws being written? Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?

Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to.

I want to whack anyone who agrees with that and who thinks the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire with a shovel.

The US government doesn't DESERVE any more tax revenue.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (2)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446154)

Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to.

Well, to be fair, China has been doing all those things for years, whereas the US just started most of them.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446184)

WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national? Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites? Which nation is putting presure on private companies to follow its agenda without any laws being written? Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?

Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to.

Which nation says that torturing small furry creatures to death is perfectly legal [sankakucomplex.com] ?

Also which nation never actually elected their politicians to begin with?

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446198)

The non subtle at all approach to control the net from US side is one way to try to control it, one that if pressed enough, will produce the Streissand effect against them. That approach, going to the upper level, will find that there are a lot of ways to communicate using internet, and will prove to be useless. But the China approach goes to the bottom level, to the people using internet opinion. Already was noted how was possible to rig online communities view on some topics (i.e. i think something of that happened in Digg in some moment), but getting that to internet as a whole. And if you can manipulate the opinion of the majority of people, no matter what kind of government you say you have in papers, everything ends being a dictatorship.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446202)

> WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national?
Many. That's the thing about democracy; you end up with a large number of elected people, some of whom may say stupid things (but don't individually have the power to DO the stupid things).

> Which nation is stopping its own citizens from reading websites?
Sorted by volume (number of citizens multiplied by number of blocked sites)? China, then an incredibly huge gap, then a cluster of theocracies, then an incredibly huge gap, then the Western nations. And that's if you take all the allegations against the West are automatically true.

> Which nation is putting presure on private companies to follow its agenda without any laws being written?
All of them. Every last one. (not always the same agenda, obviously).

> Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?
Depending on how many accusations you believe, the answer ranges from "no nation does DDoS attacks" to China (if you don't accept that a massively locked down internet can still have "independent" hacking groups launching attacks without having the government's approval).

> Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to.

Sorry, but if you think it works that backwards way, you really haven't been paying any attention to anything but a few very selective things. It's more like China is showing the world how much internet fuckery it can get away with.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446292)

"Sorry, but if the Chinese think the internet is controllable, it is because the US is showing them how to."

That comment is more than slightly patronizing. When we de-internalize the myth that all China can do is copy the West (as opposed to copying for convenience) we might give them credit for thinking for themselves.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446358)

Geeze. You do know it is possible for two nations to suck?

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (1)

nanospook (521118) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446420)

Are you talking about the country of Qwghlm!

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (2)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446522)

Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable?

I assume you mean the US, right? I must have missed the news which proves the Jester was just covering for the US government.

Remember: the first sign of a conspiracy nutjob is the rejection of all evidence to the contrary.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (5, Informative)

Lakitu (136170) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446534)

While I agree that the rampant calls for assassination are detestable, along with the I have to disagree with the main gist of your post.

Senator Lieberman's actions in particular are abhorrent. He has suggested that he has "spoken with" certain businesses, such as Amazon and that Tableau one which was featured on wikileaks, with an undertone that he would sic the legal dogs on them if they did not do as he wanted. Behavior such as this is disgusting and should be condemned, along with all the other similar behavior where people are ignoring the entire legal system as if it is ineffective and incorrect. People behaving like this undermine the rule of law which is the backbone of American freedom and prosperity.

China, however, behaves quite differently. While there have been plenty of knee-jerk reactions to make WikiLeaks unaccessable in the media, almost none of them have been followed through with, and those that have do not actually make it unreadable, they just make it inconvenient. WikiLeaks has periodically had DNS problems but it is still completely accessible at http://213.251.145.96/ [213.251.145.96] outside of what appears to be a vigilante DDoS. In China, internet traffic which has been deemed by the party as "unharmonious" is essentially completely blocked and even attempting to use those services can lead to jail time. It's also gone on in China since long before WikiLeaks was around, so the US is hardly showing them how to.

You should take note that the people actually in charge who can actually do anything have been relatively quiet about the whole affair, having only gone so far as to condemn the release as making it more difficult for nations to conduct diplomacy. A lot of the racket being made is being done just to make those in power look bad as a way of garnering attention for themselves.

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447074)

'Which nation is performing a massive denial of service attack to censor the net from information it finds undesirable? '

The US?

Did I win something?

Re:Eheh, been following the news lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447352)

WHICH nation has an elected politician calling for the assasination of a foreign national?

Canada. Have you been watching the news lately? It wasn't a U.S. politician.

Some anti-U.S. rhetoric may be in order given our response to Wikileaks, but unfounded, inaccurate, and slanderous accusations like that make me think you're just another Chinese plant. Or you're ignorant.

Re:Of course they do... (2)

oWj9*7!7dsggh7 (1952478) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446142)

Communist states view everything as being controllable.

China has a long history of favoring centralized state power. This is not really a communist issue; Chinese communism itself is just an expression of the brand of authoritarian traditionalism that goes by the name of "Confucianism".

I keep hearing tech people assuring me that "the genie is out of the bottle" and the Internet can never be controlled, and polisci people assuring me that power will never consent to being restricted by the powerless.

It's an interesting dispute - I'm glad I don have to risk actual money backing one outcome or the other.

Re:Of course they do... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446890)

The Australian government sees it as their duty to control the internet and all forms of communication in the country. It's only a matter of time until they start installing moderators in homes to make sure nothing controversial is spoken.

URL to page one? Or printer friendly? (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445900)

I suppose it's too much to ask for a link to page one or even a printer-friendly URL? Oh, wait, this is /.

Re:URL to page one? Or printer friendly? (3, Informative)

X-Power (1009277) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445924)

Since nytimes requires a referer in order to show the printpage, it's not fixable by slashdot.

If you feel like fiddling around with your HTTP headers, here is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/asia/05wikileaks-china.html?_r=4&hp=&pagewanted=print [nytimes.com]

Re:URL to page one? Or printer friendly? (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446032)

If I click the URL in TFS multiple times, I'm redirected to a page that requires a log-in.

Whereas the URL you provided works every time it's retried.

Since your NYT-URL-fu is strong, you're hired!

Re:URL to page one? Or printer friendly? (1)

X-Power (1009277) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446058)

I think they changed the url in the story, it's weird, I just noticed the login page myself.

First time I clicked, I didn't get the login page.

Either that, or it's some funky view once, then pay url in the article.

Re:URL to page one? Or printer friendly? (1)

Serenissima (1210562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445960)

Just scroll down and click the link that says "Previous Page". It takes all of 2 seconds.

Re:URL to page one? Or printer friendly? (1)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446034)

Or better yet could we have a like to the original cable on wikileaks?! I can't seem to find it.

In other news (1)

coolmanxx (150620) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445934)

Chinese observes have concluded that hubris is a most nutritional vegetable.

cat got your tongue? (1)

lx93 (1618927) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445936)

internet is certainly controllable, but what u said on internet is another case.

China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (5, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445954)

Computer networks and information systems are very controllable The Internet however is The Internet because of its loose control. China does not give access to The Internet to its citizens it gives access to its network which so happens to have internet gateways. Those gateways may be well controlled. China's network though is a walled garden with internet access its not The Internet at all.

Anti-virus software is not the issue (4, Funny)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446026)

It doesn't matter whether the Chinese choose Symantec or McAfee. They can't hope to secure the entire internet using anti-virus products. Freedom is a disease that cannot be contained. Likewise, as I learned from watching an episode of the Tick - Justice is a big blue salmon swimming upstream towards the spawning ground of Evil.

So evil dictators beware! There's a big blue salmon coming your way to give you a taste of the disease of freedom. And no anti-viral net can stop it.

Re:China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446030)

... and judging from your subject line, the makers of Norton Utilities would like a word with Beijing about this very issue.

Re:China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446078)

Those gateways may be well controlled. China's network though is a walled garden with internet access its not The Internet at all.

Ahem. That sure is a nice firewall/cable router you've got there...

Re:China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446164)

Computer networks and information systems are very controllable The Nozzle however is The Nozzle because of its loose control. China does not give access to The Nozzle to its citizens it gives access to its network which so happens to have internet gateways. Those gateways may be well controlled. China's network though is a walled garden with internet access its not The Nozzle at all.

FTFY

Re:China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446340)

The Nozzle has completed calibration.

how well does gateway control work (1)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446252)

True enough.

Next question, how well can the Chinese government control the Internet access points of their citizens?
I suppose they're quite efficient at it, but I'm also sure there are ways to operate "subversive information flows."
Specifically, how safe is it for a person in China to bypass the Golden Shield Project?

And while we're at it, how well can they control international information flow between their territory and other countries? Anybody got some info?

Re:China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (4, Interesting)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446432)

The No True Scotsman fallacy, eh?

Sorry, but China has proved that the Internet is controllable. The communist party has shown that all the "benefits" of the internet--rapid communication, access to technology, skills and educational enhancements, new mass entertainment forms, and greater facilitation of art and commerce--can be had without opening up society in any significant way or of empowering citizens in the slightest. Their walled garden supplies a significant and ever growing fraction of the services available in the rest of the world, and as time goes by, the lessons learned in China are being passed on in turn to western countries, whos governments are similarly coming to grips with the internet.

Re:China is wrong if only in terms of symantecs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34447118)

For the millionth time: True scotsman fallacy is not a fallacy. It's a communication problem.

Very controllable even by Stuxnet or Conficker... (1)

peterindistantland (1487953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34445968)

No need for a large government like China's to control the Internet!

who said what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34445974)

The leaks are about what Diplomats said, not FACTS.

it is if we let it be (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34445988)

The internet will be controllable if we continue to give up it open nature in favor of locked down protocols and technologies.

The internet of 1985 was not controllable because its users were technically literate and would act to oppose such control.

The internet of 2010, not so much.

The internet of 2020? Probably quite controlled.

Iraq and China (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446014)

If the US hadn't borrowed over a $TRILLION from China that it spent on the Iraq war, the US might be a lot more free to defend itself from China.

Re:Iraq and China (2)

sanman2 (928866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446120)

The US was borrowing from China long before the invasion of Iraq.

Re:Iraq and China (5, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446254)

Until the invasion, the US didn't owe China nearly as much, nor need China to continue to buy US debt to support ongoing operations (including the ongoing Iraq War).

In February 2003, just before the US invaded Iraq, the Treasury owed China [econdataus.com] $121.8B, 9.9% of the $1236.4B US total. In November 2008, right before the banking collapse caused a competing top source of US debt, the Treasury owed China $713.2 of $2104.1B total, 33.9% of the total. During that time, China's share of the US debt increased by 3.44x, while the total debt increased only 1.7x.

The Iraq War cost more than the extra $867.7B in debt; indeed, at over a $TRILLION the Iraq War cost could have entirely eliminated the US debt to China.

Re:Iraq and China (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446758)

In February 2003, just before the US invaded Iraq, the Treasury owed China [econdataus.com] $121.8B, 9.9% of the $1236.4B US total.

No comment on what we owed China in 2003, but the national debt at that time was NOT $1236.4 billion. It was $6783.2 billion.

Re:Iraq and China (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446924)

True, the debt I'm discussing is the foreign held Treasury debt. The rest of the debt, that is owed to private individuals, corporations and (mainly) the US government itself (eg. Social Security Administration and government pension funds), does not give any foreign country any leverage over any US policy. Indeed, the debt held by US government offices does not give any leverage over any US policy, as those offices are entirely controlled by US policy.

The total debt on February 28, 2003 [treas.gov] was $6,399.975B (under a statutory limit of $6.4T). On November 30, 2008 [treasurydirect.gov] it was $11,315B. Which is again a 1.77x increase in total debt, while debt owed to China increased 3.44x. That analysis is exactly the same as what I described in terms of the foreign debt.

Re:Iraq and China (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446934)

"Total" refers to total foreign-held debt. It's rather sad that Americans own so much of the debt, but as a proportion to the full amount China's stake has still increased as a result of the Iraq adventure.

Re:Iraq and China (2)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447356)

But think of all we accomplished. I mean we helped a man-child resolve his daddy issues! Isn't that worth thousands of US lives, 10s if not 100s of thousands of Iraqi lives and over a trillion dollars?

Re:Iraq and China (4, Insightful)

gtall (79522) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446134)

Bullshit. If the U.S. goes down, it will take China's manufacturing markets with it. China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs them. Millions of Chinese out of work will make the illegitimate rulers of China hide from the pitchforks that will be coming for them.

Re:Iraq and China (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446256)

or make the people with pitchforks hide from the tanks ?

Re:Iraq and China (3, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446258)

Who said anything about "the US goes down"? Only you did. That's bullshit. China's interest is in the US continuing to owe it that money, paying that steady interest, while using the US need to continue to sell debt to China to dictate US stay out of China's way. China wants a weak and compliant US, not a destroyed US. And that's what China's got.

Re:Iraq and China (2)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446288)

Then why has china stopped exports of rare earth minerals?

China has already begun to clamp down on exports. China used the USA to drag itself from farmer peasants to manufacturers. once they reach that point with enough people they won't need the USA their own population wanting cars, computers, etc will be far more than the USA can buy

Re:Iraq and China (4, Informative)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446472)

You really need to educate yourself... China's total exports are about 20% of its GDP. China's exports to the US are 20% of its exports. Put those together: China's exports to the US are 4% of its GDP. If all exports to the US were stopped, it would be less of a GDP hit than the US had in 2009. At this point, we need them (and their manufacturing, production, and funding) more than they need us.

so... (5, Insightful)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446046)

china trying to control the net, bad. But USA attempting to take wikileaks offline, business as usual...

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446170)

Attacking wikileaks is bad too. As a US citizen, I don't condone that either. Whether or not I agree with Wikileaks posting the information, trying to attack the site and take them down is counterproductive. The information is still available and now people are more inclined to check it out just to see what all the fuss is about. As far as China's activities go, attacking US government sites/email is just another kind of espionage. I bet the US does similar things (but is probably just better at not getting caught.)

Re:so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446820)

China's censorship does not extend outside China, but the USA is pushing their censorship onto everyone else.

Not the same thing at all as far as which one is scarier to the rest of the world.

Next (1)

denshao2 (1515775) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446082)

The United States will too.

Original cablegate links? (4, Interesting)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446092)

Where are the original cables? There seem to be a few talking about blocking/redirecting google in china. But I can't find those refering to "cyberattacks".

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/05/09BEIJING1336.html [wikileaks.ch]

http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/07/09BEIJING1957.html [wikileaks.ch]

Re:Original cablegate links? (2)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446116)

So far this is the only reference I can find:

On June 24 servers in China were virally infected, causing them to redirect computers attempting to reach Google pages to an unknown web site. These attacks made Google services unavailable to many Chinese users for approximately 24 hours, and caused the company to lose 20% of its traffic on that day.

Re:Original cablegate links? (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446242)

So far this is the only reference I can find:

On June 24 servers in China were virally infected, causing them to redirect computers attempting to reach Google pages to an unknown web site. These attacks made Google services unavailable to many Chinese users for approximately 24 hours, and caused the company to lose 20% of its traffic on that day.

Given that the NYT has been consulting with the State Department before publishing any cables, it's possible that they chose only to report on its contents, rather than to publish it.

Re:Original cablegate links? (1)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446388)

Yes, but shouldn't the original cables be on wikileaks already? If wikileaks have only released the cable publically isn't that kind of against their mandate? I thought they were trying to usher in an age of "scientific journalism" where original sources could be cited.

Re:Original cablegate links? (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446498)

Yes, but shouldn't the original cables be on wikileaks already?

For this dataset, it seems that a decision has been made not to 'scoop' the news outlets. The cables appear simultaneously with their release from the media outlets disseminating the data.

If wikileaks have only released the cable publically isn't that kind of against their mandate? I thought they were trying to usher in an age of "scientific journalism" where original sources could be cited.

Yes, this is uncharacteristic of wikileaks. Assange's stated reason for this is that he is largely relying on the journalists to scrub the data of any details that might endanger individuals.

The result seems to be a somewhat awkward but workable compromise between the physical security of people implicated in these cables and free access to information. It addresses the concerns of those who claim that 'wikileaks endangers lives' without significantly compromising the flow of information.

Interestingly, it also ensures that wikileaks will remain in the headlines for weeks, if not months, to come. I somehow doubt this detail has escaped Assange, who has stated recently that it's not sufficient simply to publish the data; it must be publicised as well.

Re:Original cablegate links? (1)

Adam Hazzlebank (970369) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447042)

oh well, I hope we see the original cables released in the next few days. The cables in general are quite readable and I'd much rather go back to the source than read an article.

Re:Original cablegate links? (3)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446236)

Swiss DNS appears to have shut off wikileaks domain now as well, or else to be under attack. Try these (no knowing how long they'll stay up, but as I post this they're still available):
#1 [213.251.145.96]
#2 [213.251.145.96]

Re:Original cablegate links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446654)

Swiss DNS appears to have shut off wikileaks domain now as well, or else to be under attack.

I am physically in Switzerland, and I can access the two .ch URLs right now, so it appears Swiss DNS have not shut off wikileaks.

Re:Original cablegate links? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446956)

wikileaks.ch works fine for me atm

So why was it kept confidential (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446104)

So why was it kept confidential in the first place? I think the US government and Google would only gain if they made it public.

Re:So why was it kept confidential (5, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446354)

So why was it kept confidential in the first place? I think the US government and Google would only gain if they made it public.

Because a culture of secrecy breeds power and the ability to act with impunity. Careerist elements within any government prefer secrecy because it allows them to forego the often tedious act of being accountable for even the smallest decision. It's often justified as a Good Thing because the actors can circumvent bureaucratic red tape and work more efficiently. Ultimately, however, the end game is the same: A small elite minority within the permanent establishment begin to take privilege and influence for granted, and act independently of government policy.

This is not something unique to the US diplomatic corps. It happens in all organisations. And it is explicitly what freedom of information laws and regulations are designed to counteract. Absent this capability, it's left to whistleblowers and wikileaks to serve in this role.

Viewed in this light, we have to conclude that the attacks on wikileaks are primarily driven not by the state, but by certain of its constituents who might lose the leverage that a culture of secrecy has given them. That's why the counter-attack on wikileaks has been composed mostly of deft cuts at the the service's underpinnings rather than overt state action. A quiet word here and there, and anyone hosting material even related to wikileaks goes offline. A whisper in the ear of an ambitious (or susceptible) Swedish prosecutor and a nuisance case becomes an international manhunt.

Secrecy and a scarcity of information are crucial to the continuation of the cronyism about which so many slashdotters complain. It astounds me how many of these same people who rail at the unhealthy, shadowy bonds between corporations, lobbyists and the government are now scandalised that an organisation like wikileaks is struggling to diminish the power of these linkages.

Re:So why was it kept confidential (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446424)

because it let's china save face. Just like the comments from China about North Korea.

you have friends that are a married couple. You find out one cheated once but felt guilty about it. Do you tell the other because they are your friend too? That is what wikileaks has done.

Sometimes in order to get ahead in the world you have to keep small things secret.

It's more vulnerable than people think (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446172)

People like to say the Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it, but it's not really true. When you control the channel between your citizens and restricted content or otherwise control the infrastructure that makes the Internet possible, you also control and can censor the Internet to a significant degree.

The United States' recent actions (Homeland Security seizing "infringing" domains; American companies being pressured into dropping Wikileaks) are good examples of this.

Re:It's more vulnerable than people think (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446936)

yup, and the final outcome will prove it one way or another.

Devil's Advocate..... Again (4, Insightful)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446196)

Leaving aside the absurdity of meaningfully controlling the internet (a sentiment obviously shared by the Chinese informants, likely younger, New Guard leaders), they may have a point in trying to control the dissemination of information in China.

Personally, I believe information should be free, and fully support WikiLeaks. However, having been to China on numerous occasions, and having had opportunities to talk to some of those hundreds of millions of peasant that still litter the countryside... censorship can be a good thing in a society in which ignorance is widespread. I do think China goes too far, and censors many things that should not be censored, to the detriment of both its and society's interests.

But it also can prevent Fox-news style media from manipulating the masses (that role stays in the hands of the government). We in the West can do a better job of handling freedom of information. Many in China, however, are not yet ready. The urban centers could probably handle it. But I don't trust the peasants in the Chinese boonies any more than I trust rednecks and hillbillies in the United States. The Politburo leader who googled himself and found critical articles: some of those are legitimate criticisms, other are "Obama isn't America" style crap. The average Chinese peasant doesn't know the difference; given how the Chinese government often behaves, even conspiracy theories are all too believable.

The Chinese central government has improved a lot; based on my friends who have connections in Zhongnanhai, the central government basically hopes to keep the lid on things as it (really fucking slowly) tries to clean up its act (which is basically impossible, since the local and provincial governments very much like being corrupt). But until then, keeping local yahoos from rioting based on false information may take precedence over total freedom of information for China. Hopefully this will slowly change. But until then, keeping the masses ignorant may contribute more to social stability and prosperity than openness of information would. Democratizing too soon might result in Soviet-style collapse: democracy did not work out well for Russia in the early 90s, just as I doubt it would work out well for China now.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (1)

Nrrqshrr (1879148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446316)

Between "Keeping information from the wrong hands" and "Keeping information from all hands" there is one small border... Easilly crossed, easilly gone.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (1)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446644)

And it has been crossed, both in China and in the US. With the universal accessibility of the internet, it is much harder to tier access to information. So, those who believe that it would be costly to have information fall into the wrong hands would rather let none have it than anyone have it.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (1)

Dails (1798748) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446380)

Welp, you have to choose. You believe information should be free? That comes with the price of ALL information being free, even the false information, which comes with its own price of the effect it will have. Even if you only had genuine information be totally free, you have different interpretations of information, and each different interpretation has its own set of differing reactions. Your stance doesn't make much sense because you call for free information but turn right around and say that the government should restrict information in the name of peace and control.

Freedom of information is non-workable. Everybody needs secrets.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (2)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447202)

In an ideal world, information should be totally an completely free. Even all the propaganda and lies. And it wouldn't be a problem, because everyone would be educated, informed, and willing to get off their ass and do some research to determine what was true. Holocaust denial? No problem. Claiming Obama is a secret terrorist Muslim? Let me check the facts! Everyone would be a conscientious, responsible citizen. False information would not travel far, as the masses would not tolerate blatant lying. We could react rationally to any shocking revelation.

But since this isn't the case, and huge numbers of people are dumb, panicky animals, in some cases, they should be protected from themselves. I'm not going to grab a torch and pitchfork because I see some article online criticizing a local party cadre, that happens to be on a blog with no sources. There are entire villages that would. Or can barely read, and could easily be controlled by some charismatic rabble-rouser. Until we reach the democratic utopia, for those countries that aren't as developed, stability and economic growth is more important. Chinese peasants need clean water and food more than political freedom. Once they've gone past the "The Jungle" stage of development, we can start working towards an ideal world, in which information is completely free, humans are completely rational, and pigs fly (yeah, it's gonna be a long, long time.)

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (2)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446556)

I can agree with every one of your point, and yet at every point wonder: in what way exactly is keeping the population ignorant supposed to pave the way to more democratic institutions? Yes, I would be dismayed at seeing China ends up in the hand of the mob as it has happened in Russia. However, I do not rejoice at the view of seeing it going the way of Myanmar, and I do not rejoice when I see their government whipping up nationalism as a manner of maintaining unity, and I don't see any kind of progress there.

Your arguments are the very same than those that were used in the 18th century when the people in various countries of Europe began the process of taking their destinies into their own hands: the peasants are just a mob of ignorant Yahoos (the very word Yahoo was coined by Jonathan Swift in these times) and we are safer keeping them in their crass ignorance.

I would add that I don't have any idea about the right answer to these questions and no inkling about the kind of future we are headed to, but I don't think either that it is wise to justify the suppression of freedom for other people when we would not accept the same treatment for ourselves.

You say that the Americans are able to handle Fox News type of propaganda.

Are you sure of that? The educated one seem to be doing fine. The Yahoos not so much. The total effect looks much like a mess. In the end, propaganda is propaganda.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (2)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446682)

That was supposed to be part of my point: I don't think that many Americans can distinguish between the wheat and the chaff, and our democracy is collapsing under the weight of the ignorance and/or apathy of the voters. If America has such a hard time handling it (read: we produce "leaders" and movements like Sarah Palin and the tea party), then imagine what a similar movement in China would look like. America is far more urbanized and educated, and we already have such a large portion of the population willing to believe Obama is a secret Muslim/terrorist, or taking to the streets demanding "government leave Medicare alone". We can survive, barely, as it is.

Now what if 70% of America were susceptible to the Tea Party? We might very well end up with Glenn Becks in positions of real power, or without enough power to move the masses to do something really, really stupid and counterproductive.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (1)

Chinapaesant (1953010) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446624)

Do you really think I believe you that the "peasant" in China understand English??? Frankly you are full of BS. I have been in China and I had a rough time time in making even the "paesant" at the hotel to understand me! Censorship in China is NOT against the "paesant" but against the few ones who understand English. The ones that are educated enough to bring China in this century.

Re:Devil's Advocate..... Again (1)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446728)

I speak fluent Mandarin Chinese, thanks. And on my trips, I was usually visiting the hometown of some college friends, who could themselves speak the local dialect (more often than not, we had to ask parents/uncles for translations, since they couldn't properly speak the dialect anymore :( ).

The authorities don't give a fuck about censoring English. Someone who speaks English (the elite) is smart enough to get around the firewall, or can simply use the international version of Google, or visit some of the many English websites that aren't blocked. They care about the masses who don't speak English, and thus the Chinese internet and Chinese-language websites are controlled much more closely than English language content. Anyone determined can get around the firewall, there's tons of software and proxies for doing so. I will call BS on your statement.

Focus people, focus (5, Insightful)

sp3d2orbit (81173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446370)

Before this degenerates into another self hating, "America is just as bad" thread lets take a step back. China is at war with the United States as they outlined in the document "Unrestricted Warfare" (http://cryptome.org/cuw01.htm). Lets not forget that fact. The Chinese Politburo wants to destroy Western values, such as representative democracy and freedom of the press. The US is not a perfect example. But it is far and away a better example than China.

The way the Chinese leaderships sees it, there are two options. Option 1: Western ideals spread to China and one party rule comes to an end. Option 2: Chinese authoritarianism spreads to the West and the party lives on. This is a fight to the death of one system against another. If we don't hold our system up as a shining example of how things "should be", while trying to make it better, then there is but one alternative. An untenable one.

To the posters who will lambaste me, I ask only one thing: When you point out the flaws in Western governance please include a proposed solution. Mindless complaining should not be confused with intelligence.

Re:Focus people, focus (2)

peterindistantland (1487953) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446540)

China is trying to spread authoritarianism to the west? You view of the world must be stuck in the era when the Soviets sponsored communist parties in Europe. All China is saying, all the time, is "leave us alone".

Re:Focus people, focus (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446610)

Paranoid much? The simple fact is that from the perspective of most people in the west, China's censorship is internal and does not impact them, while the increasing US censorship is something they try to push on everyone else, even who doesn't want it.

China is a danger to the information freedom of people in China. The USA is a danger to the information freedom of the whole world.

Re:Focus people, focus (3, Insightful)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446806)

I'm not sure if this a troll or not, but what the heck.

First, I agree that we should take a step back: China, the US, and other governments are all guilty of many infractions against freedom of information, and attempted (and successful) censorship.

Furthermore, pointing fingers and saying "But he's doing it toooooo!" is not an excuse. We can rightfully point out the US government is guilty of censorship, just as the Chinese government is guilty. It's not self-hating, though. It's legitimate criticisms of our government. We expect better from our government, since we have higher standards.

Also, if you really believe that crap about the US and China being locked in another ideological Cold War, you are sadly mistaken. They do not want to destroy "Western values“ any more than we want to destroy "Chinese values" or something. Would we like it if they were a liberal democracy? Sure. Is it a "fight to the death"? Hardly. Multiple systems of governance can happily co-exist on this planet, believe it or not. The Chinese and American leaderships are both smart enough to realize that. China also knows democracy!=party rule coming to an end. Look at Taiwan: the KMT democratized, and yet have usually been in power. Based on their rapidly improving living standards, most Chinese today would willingly vote for the Communist Party, despite its corruption, simply because there is no viable alternative. It will take time for those alternatives to take root.

In the meantime, take your Cold War somewhere else. I like peaceful development and co-existence, thanks.

And in the interest of doing so, we should vehemently criticize our own system, and actively think of alternatives to improve our own system of governance.

(plus 0ne Informative) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34446554)

ProBlems with

Freedom is not free... (1)

garompeta (1068578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34446608)

...not free for the rest of the world.

controllable? (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447054)

idiots. yeah sure, the internet is controllable... maybe if you had a BILLION PEOPLE at your disposal!

oh... wait, never mind

So does Obama's US government (2)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447066)

the DNS & DDOS attacks on Wikileaks, the elimination of net neutrality, the courts vs. Limewire... what more proof do we need that our own US government will only let us have the internet that they want us to see?

Also in the news (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447100)

The Chinese government claims Communism works. Or that they're communist. Or a combination thereof, dunno which it is this week.

Let's be serious here, "the Chinese government claims..." is now a sentence that means something? What happened to good ol' free world hubris? Did it go out the window when we abandoned the free part?

Turnabout (1)

Jammer6502 (1430197) | more than 3 years ago | (#34447330)

The Internet views China as "controllable"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>