Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Tightens Internet Restrictions

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the only-while-standing-on-one-foot dept.

China 83

The NY Times reports China has once again stepped up its efforts to control the internet, passing a new set of rules by which internet users and ISPs must abide. In addition to requiring that users provide their real names to internet providers, the government says those providers are now more responsible for deleting or blocking posts that aren't agreeable to the Chinese authorities. Quoting: "The new regulations, issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, allow Internet users to continue to adopt pseudonyms for their online postings, but only if they first provide their real names to service providers, a measure that could chill some of the vibrant discourse on the country’s Twitter-like microblogs. The authorities periodically detain and even jail Internet users for politically sensitive comments, such as calls for a multiparty democracy or allegations of impropriety by local officials. In recent weeks, Internet users in China have exposed a series of sexual and financial scandals that have led to the resignations or dismissals of at least 10 local officials. International news media have also published a series of reports in recent months on the accumulation of wealth by the family members of China’s leaders, and some Web sites carrying such reports ... have been assiduously blocked, while Internet comments about them have been swiftly deleted. The regulations issued Friday build on a series of similar administrative guidelines and municipal rules issued over the past year. China’s mostly private Internet service providers have been slow to comply with them, fearing the reactions of their customers. The Standing Committee’s decision has much greater legal force, and puts far more pressure on Chinese Internet providers to comply more quickly and more comprehensively, Internet specialists said."

cancel ×

83 comments

Canary in the coal mine (5, Interesting)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410789)

Countries like China, Iran, etc. may be leading the pack, but the trend for years now all over the world has been an increasingly locked-down internet.

And it's getting easier and easier for governments to do too. Just think of how different things are today vs. the mid-late 90's in the U.S. Back then in the dial-up days, you had all kinds of local ISP's available. It would have been almost impossible for the U.S. government to really control the internet. Today, virtually all broadband internet access is controlled by a handful of major corporate conglomerates (Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-mobile probably control 90+% of all internet access in the country). Blacklisting sites, monitoring individual users, shutting down access by geographical location--it's all very easy for the U.S. government to do now (hell, they probably have it all automated and ready to go already, under the guise of national security of course). All it would take are a few laws slipping through.

And, of course, those laws are already slipping through in plenty of non-oppressive democracies like Australia [wikipedia.org] , Britain [wikipedia.org] , etc.

What China is doing today, the democratic world will be doing tomorrow.

And if you *really* want to get creeped out, think about a possible time in the future when most consumer computers are locked down too (similar to iOS's "walled garden"), and only authorized software is allowed to be installed (and governments can make individual software applications disappear the same as they can websites).

Re:Canary in the coal mine (0, Troll)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410831)

After reading your post, then your sig, I was about to call you crazy. Then I saw your user name. At least you live up to it.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (4, Insightful)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410867)

What makes you say the OP is crazy? His vision of a big brother policed internet isnt that far fetched.

I believed Saudi Arabia already had similar... (4, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410955)

... net restrictions.

Since Saudi Arabia is an ally to the USA - which gives it the right to implement any kind of net restriction without getting any condemnation from Uncle Sam.

Welcome comrade !!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411151)

You are correct, it is not far fetched at all. . . .

Back in the day, we used to laugh at just how f^cked up the Soviet Union was and how they treated their citizens.
Fast forward a bit and it seems the US of A has followed right along in their footsteps. Hell, we go any further with
it and we may as well adopt their National Anthem and Flag too :|

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411343)

What makes you say the OP is crazy? His vision of a big brother policed internet isnt that far fetched.

Word, if I had mod points you'd both be modded up. You have to be blind to not see that all the laws passed are about reducing our freedom in favor of corporations and "fear of whatever" campaigns.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (2)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42415663)

I guess you don't remember that fine time in America where we thought some official dressed up in a uniform demanding your papers to travel was something we would only ever see in a movie about the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Just try getting through the airport without presenting your 'papers' today.

Then there was that incident where Amazon revoked Animal Farm from people's Kindles.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

dodobh (65811) | about a year ago | (#42419071)

Amazon revoked Nineteen Eighty Four. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/18/amazon_removes_1984_from_kindle/ [theregister.co.uk]

COMMIES !! STOP PISSING INTO THE WIND !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410883)

You look awfully yellow !!

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410913)

iOS's "walled garden"

In Soviet Union they called it gulag.

iGulag (1, Offtopic)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411081)

iOS's "walled garden"

In Soviet Union they called it gulag.

Steve would probably insist on "iGulag".
It's a catchy, memorable, and descriptive term. Who could possibly object to it?

Re:Canary in the coal mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410917)

(hell, they probably have it all automated and ready to go already, under the guise of national security of course)

[citation needed]

Ha! You should really look into loosening your tin foil hat!

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411135)

[citation needed]

Sure, I'll just go get the NSA to declassify it all and FedEx the info right to you.

After all, we all remember how open and cooperative AT&T was when it was accidentally exposed [slashdot.org] in their facilities.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411173)

Corrected link [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Canary in the coal mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410993)

think about a possible time in the future when most consumer computers are locked down too

This is comingj to pass already, and it's because people are begging for that world were someone else controls their devices. Everyone buying an iOS or locked down Android device is doing just that.

In China, it'll happen because the government requires it by threat of force. In the west, it will happen because people are stupid and voluntarily ran to the same place without anyone making them.

but in the USA they can't block religion sites. (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410999)

but in the USA they can't block religion sites.

Also in a authorized software only system to days app stores have to much censorship to pass constitutional muster and anti trun laws may force there to be more then one app store.

Also the adult market is to big be to locked out of a app store so we may need to have a adult app / movie / media store as well that is on all systems even ios and windows phones / metro.

Re:but in the USA they can't block religion sites. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411123)

I can only imagine these posts ate written as intentionally trolling and that someone is really not this retarded.

Also in a authorized software only system to days app stores have to much censorship to pass constitutional muster

Well, you know, except that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations.

and anti trun laws may force there to be more then one app store.

If such company's devices/OS is a leveraged as part of monopoly on the market that is likely.

Also the adult market is to big be to locked out of a app store

Bullshit if by "adult market" you mean porn. The porn industry is small potatoes despite what idiots on the Internet think. Also the whole "VHS beat Betamax because of porn" statement is a myth since there was porn on Betamax and the porn industry revenues from home video sales was massively eclipsed by non-porn sales.

Re:but in the USA they can't block religion sites. (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42415315)

Well, you know, except that the First Amendment doesn't apply to corporations. but if the government say you must you this list of ISP then it changes a bit.

Do you mean, we will have to visit our parents? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411133)

What China is doing today, the democratic world will be doing tomorrow.

China orders children to visit their elderly parents: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-20860264 [bbc.co.uk]

Those basement stairs can really be a killer climb . . .

Re:Do you mean, we will have to visit our parents? (1)

benjfowler (239527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411567)

Elder abuse and neglect would be especially shocking in a culture which values and honours old people.

The suggested solution is typically heavy handed, but the problem is very real.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411203)

That's ok, internet freedom can join the long list of other things that are going away, like privacy.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411419)

For those of us in the USA, you can thank the Boomers for this.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411247)

Back then in the dial-up days, you had all kinds of local ISP's available. It would have been almost impossible for the U.S. government to really control the internet.

Where do you think all those mom-and-pop dialup ISPs got their feeds that they distributed via their modem banks?

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411489)

It's easy to see the states going down the path you mention as a worst case scenario, but the ISP consolidation is capitalism at work, there was a slashdot article about it a while back...

And Britian has always had a very snoopy government, so there's no surprise there, no idea why Australia cares besides the ISPs over there wanting to make more $ through politics somehow. China though has a very different culture and government, I don't think the west or europe would ever look to China as a model for anything anymore than Russia.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411591)

And people wanted countries like China to have a say in the UN about how the Internet is regulated.

Lol.

Yup, they'd be better than the USA alone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42412869)

China having a word in the operation of the internet and its regulation would be better than the USA alone.

You think USA is free?

~lol~

Re:Canary in the coal mine (1)

kuleiana (629890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42412107)

This already happens now, it’s just not “legal”—we need to stand up and demand that our access to information not be limited, and create alternative connective tissue to prevent others from blocking access to our own information, while they simultaneously share and record our most private data! In some ways, we are already more totalitarian than their government is. We need to fix this situation because we created it collectively with the assistance of some very shady characters. In the days of dialup, it was actually easier for them to control because there were so few primary servers and backbones. So I’m not so sure that the task is actually easier these days, not to mention that there are hundreds of thousands of hacktivists who have the ability to help change things for the better through knowledge, effort and education.

Re:Canary in the coal mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42418853)

uefi bios , secure boot... we're there...

And if you don't like it you're an internet addict (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410855)

And they have ways of dealing with addicts over there http://healthland.time.com/2012/12/13/controversial-surgery-for-addiction-burns-away-brains-pleasure-center/ [time.com]

While meanwhile in the west people are enslaved by Google and Facebook...

Comrade Obama salutes the party (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410857)

Comrade Hussein Obama starts taking notes on how to apply this to the benefit of Big Content.

Compare and contrast (4, Interesting)

plover (150551) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410889)

As I read through these, I couldn't help but do some simple comparing between the Facebook TOS and Chinese laws. Real names, no posting of objectionable material; but then bannination is nothing like being jailed. Now think about the "mom test" (would you add your mom to your "friends" list?), or the general public.

Is that what most people want?

Re:Compare and contrast (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410919)

I've heard that an hour after you post to FB, you feel like you want to post again.

is that actually true?

Re:Compare and contrast (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410941)

Yep it's the same feeling I get after taking a shit in your mom's mouth.

Re:Compare and contrast (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411353)

... Now think about the "mom test" (would you add your mom to your "friends" list?),..

Thanks for reminding me my mom is dead.

Re:Compare and contrast (4, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411617)

Is that what most people want?

Most people do not care. They just want to get their entertainment -- sports, celebrity gossip, "news," gossip about their friends and family, etc. If they are required to use their real names, they will do so. If their communications is being monitored, they will not care, because they only really cared about getting their entertainment in the first place. People only care about censorship when it directly affects them; tell people that Japanese comic books are censored in the United States, by law, and they will say, "So what? I do not read those anyway, those are disgusting and stupid and I bet there is something wrong with that guy who was arrested for possessing them." Americans think nothing of the fact that their police carry military weapons or that we arrest and imprison more people each year than China (nor do they stop to think about the fact that most "convicted felons" were never actually convicted by a jury, or that we do not have enough courts in this country to give that many people a jury trial).

Re:Compare and contrast (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42424381)

Americans think nothing of the fact that their police carry military weapons

Americans also think nothing of the fact that their citizenry can carry military weapons...

You FAiL it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42410905)

do and doing what obsessed - give Win out; e1ther the It attempts to resulted in the much as Windows Bloc in order to long term survival Paranoid conspiracy

Meanwhile in the civilized world (2, Informative)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42410961)

Not so different from what Facebook [zerohedge.com] do, or in general what Google [google.com] reports that is forced to do, ordered by the ones actually in power (mostly the ones reported here [google.com] )

Re:Meanwhile in the civilized world (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411359)

Five root comments so far, and not one of them has anything to do with the topic at hand - mostly they talk about "we are the same if not worse". Off-topicism is really a drag, who wants to go over this exact same territory AGAIN

Re:Meanwhile in the civilized world (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411777)

Wrong and right are subjective evaluations. Before jumping into the "That is wrong" waters, be aware that you could be considering right, or at least normal, something very similar. This is the core behind all those (mine included) root comments.

Now, if we forget that in US do basically that with their citizens, and tries very hard to push it to all the world (in fact, still have some laws that protect their own citizens, but care less than nothing about the rights of the rest of the world people), yes, i think it is wrong, it goes against the potential of internet as disruptive force, not specifically for the government of China but for the current world order, in a (hopely) good way, against the human rights (not sure if the rights of their citizens if they are the ones defining them), and is obviously being abused by a sector of the ones that are in power. But probably that comment could be applied to a lot of governments, not just China.

Re:Meanwhile in the civilized world (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42415937)

who wants to go over this exact same territory AGAIN

You must be new here.

No VPN's are bad for businesses use that need them (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411023)

No VPN's are bad for businesses use that need them for security.

If you where a IT guy at a big businesses would you want working who take businesses trips to china to be doing work over the china internet system where china can just copy all your private data?

Re:No VPN's are bad for businesses use that need t (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411357)

If you 'where' capable of making sense...

Re:No VPN's are bad for businesses use that need t (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411655)

Not sure what you are trying to say here. If I can be reasonably assured that my laptop hasn't been owned while I was going through customs (not at all a given), there are VPN solutions that will definitely secure my traffic between that laptop and home. If those solutions are blocked, then yeah, it's definitely not safe to transact anything sensitive.

Openvpn now blocked, imdb blocked! (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411925)

I can confirm that OpenVPN was being blocked just a couple of weeks ago, while it used to work in the summer. Strangely, ssh connections were not being blocked. I did manage to get openvpn working, but the endpoint was on port 53/tcp. Using tcp for VPN traffic is sub-optimal, so this was not a good solution.

The other odd thing was the websites being blocked included imdb. What subversive information is on imdb?

Re:Openvpn now blocked, imdb blocked! (1)

sc0rpi0n (63816) | about a year ago | (#42417369)

Setting the OpenVPN link-mtu to 1100 seems to work around the UDP blocking. Not ideal, but better than TCP with the package loss you experience here.

Cue it up... (2)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411225)

Cue up obligatory "But the USA is way worse!" postings from trolls who have never left their mother's basement and who have no idea what a *real* police state is.

Re:Cue it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411327)

How does your suck make my suck suck any less?

Re:Cue it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411377)

Enjoying your Cohiba's? That brand of cigar is illegal in the USA. Why is it illegal? Ideological differences.

Things may not be worse in the US, but that doesn't mean the situation is improving here either.

Re:Cue it up... (2)

halivar (535827) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411771)

Well, to be fair, if you're enjoying Cohiba's outside the US (including Cuba itself), you're probably smoking fakes anyhow.

Re:Cue it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411985)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

It feels similar to "Yeah but, no one really gets arrested for just pot possession really so it doesnt matter that it's technically illegal still." type arguements. Which is totally ignoring the economic and social consequences of it all, or the fact thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted for things that are de facto legal in the minds of some.

Re:Cue it up... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42412159)

Why is it illegal? Ideological differences.

No, it's illegal due to a small but powerful block of voters in Miami. If it was illegal due to ideological differences there would be many dozens of states for which it would be illegal to trade - Likely including China.

Not just any block of voters (1)

jesusonthehalfshell (2778153) | about a year and a half ago | (#42414735)

The "small but powerful" block of voters are people who know orders of magnitude more about Cuba as a nation than you do, and know orders of magnitude more about the nature of the Communist dictatorship in Cuba than you do, etc. That won't stop millions of sanctimonious Canadians from acting like they are down with Cuba because they imagined themselves smoking a Cuban cigar one time. The fact is, American citizens - many of whom or first, second, or third generation Cubans - know more about Cuba than Canadian citizens. Please do not compare the relatively small number of Cuban-Canadians to the vibrant and vast Cuban-American subculture. Good day.

Citation needed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42415019)

Really.

They left Cuba. They are self-selected to people who hate Cuba.

And you REALLY need a lot of evidence to back up your "orders of magnitude more" claim.

Cuban health care is better than the USA. Literacy and life expectancy much higher.

Despite a nearly cripling embargo and continuing interference in their sovereign affairs by the arsehole next door.

Re:Cue it up... (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411389)

Cue up obligatory "But the USA is way worse!" postings from trolls who have never left their mother's basement and who have no idea what a *real* police state is.

having left my mom's basement and venturing into the real world I find USA to not be way worse, but trying desperately to catch up with the "way worse" to be it's own sort of police state.

Due to the recent school shooting, they have put a ton of restrictions on schools.
TSA is there to make sure we don't forget that someone tried to light a sneaker on fire on a plane.
Putting up advertisments for a legal business is a great way to show how "police state" we have become. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare [wikipedia.org]
And there is a ton more that has happened in the last 10 years that has shown that we are heading towards a police state.
One of the biggest clues is we have Wars on things. War on Drugs, War on Terrorist, War on Freedom. War on anyone cutting into corporations profits.

While we may not be as bad as some of the other places, we are trying damn hard to get there.

The sky is falling... (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411763)

Due to the recent school shooting, they have put a ton of restrictions on schools.

Umm, maybe in a few places but mostly things are unchanged. I coach at a high school and there has been pretty much no change in any of the 50 or so high schools in our county since the recent shooting in New England. Some understandable discussions regarding what would be appropriate action but there hardly has been any knee jerk reaction in most places.

TSA is there to make sure we don't forget that someone tried to light a sneaker on fire on a plane.

The TSA is there because some crazy people flew airplanes into buildings. That's not to excuse some of the ridiculous behavior of the TSA but it is there because we told our elected officials that a bunch of rent-a-cops weren't doing an adequate job of airport security before 9/11 which is arguably true. The TSA seems to be quite the overreaction but it is there because we collectively were afraid and our government did what we wanted them to do at the time.

And there is a ton more that has happened in the last 10 years that has shown that we are heading towards a police state.

A conveniently vague argument. If you really think the US is turning into a police state then why don't you move somewhere else?

One of the biggest clues is we have Wars on things.

Right, the War on Poverty [wikipedia.org] really is a sign that we are oppressed. Terrible thing that our government did trying to help people.

Re:The sky is falling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42412039)

Is the War on Poverty working out as well as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, because form here it sure seems to be as successful.

Re:The sky is falling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42413319)

Airport security was a joke but the TSA is an embarrassment! Think the democracy will last when people so easily panic and overreact? The last 10 years of power grabbing and undermining of rights just accelerated the slow decline already in progress. If somebody can't be "vague" referring to the last decade of decline then you likely are not equipped for the discussion.

Societies change slowly with time (or faster with crisis) if all we did is run away from problems there would be no progress anywhere. The US got to the top by having a lot of people stand up and fight - and I don't mean the military but the citizens who fought to create what we have and unfortunately not enough fight to retain the victories of the past. Corruption and despotism are ALWAYS a threat -- what was that quote? the price of freedom is eternal vigilance --- and that again, doesn't mean military. The military does very little to protect freedom. It hurts freedom when people shirk civic responsibility by delegating it to organizations that only deal with external threats or their own self interests.

Re:The sky is falling... (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42414427)

Due to the recent school shooting, they have put a ton of restrictions on schools.

Umm, maybe in a few places but mostly things are unchanged. I coach at a high school and there has been pretty much no change in any of the 50 or so high schools in our county since the recent shooting in New England. Some understandable discussions regarding what would be appropriate action but there hardly has been any knee jerk reaction in most places.

TSA is there to make sure we don't forget that someone tried to light a sneaker on fire on a plane.

The TSA is there because some crazy people flew airplanes into buildings. That's not to excuse some of the ridiculous behavior of the TSA but it is there because we told our elected officials that a bunch of rent-a-cops weren't doing an adequate job of airport security before 9/11 which is arguably true. The TSA seems to be quite the overreaction but it is there because we collectively were afraid and our government did what we wanted them to do at the time.

And there is a ton more that has happened in the last 10 years that has shown that we are heading towards a police state.

A conveniently vague argument. If you really think the US is turning into a police state then why don't you move somewhere else?

One of the biggest clues is we have Wars on things.

Right, the War on Poverty [wikipedia.org] really is a sign that we are oppressed. Terrible thing that our government did trying to help people.

The TSA hasn't stopped anything other then quick traveling since they have been started.

Guess as more laws, like the wiretapping law, aren't going to convince you that we are heading to a police state. I bet you are one of those people who will justify everything up until they take you away.

War on Poverty? Of all the wars, you pick one that is from 50's? Dude, wake the fuck up. We are talking current events, not shit from over 50 years ago.
Oh, and by the way, how did the war on poverty turn out? Did we get rid of the poor people?

I imagine you have a good life, you got time to coach, probably in your declining years. You are retired or getting ready to retire, and don't want to think that the great USA that you remember is going down the shit hole. Well, sorry buddy, it is, and why? Because people like you refuse to see the truth. You want to believe that everything will turn out good. That everyone is here to help everyone else and has the best interests in heart. The world isn't like that. People with power, abuse that power. They do what they can to get more power, and don't care who they hurt in the process. This is the history of man. We have always been that way, we always will be. And why? Because only a few of us listen and pay attention when it's happening, everyone else think it doesn't exist, or it's someone else's problem.

Re:Cue it up... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | about a year and a half ago | (#42413939)

desperately to catch up with the "way worse" to be it's own sort of police state

If that's true, why did the USA oppose the UN's attempt at 'internet governance?' You think they would be all over the opportunity to regulate the internet.

http://www.zdnet.com/u-s-now-totally-unified-in-opposition-of-u-n-internet-governance-7000008382/ [zdnet.com]

Re:Cue it up... (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42414485)

desperately to catch up with the "way worse" to be it's own sort of police state

If that's true, why did the USA oppose the UN's attempt at 'internet governance?' You think they would be all over the opportunity to regulate the internet.

http://www.zdnet.com/u-s-now-totally-unified-in-opposition-of-u-n-internet-governance-7000008382/ [zdnet.com]

Let me get this correct. You are asking me on why the USA does NOT want the UN to be in charge of the internet? Seriously?

The USA does NOT want to lose the power it has over the internet. The corporations that pay off our politicians do NOT want to have to start paying off the government in every country, so they want the USA to stay in charge.

If the USA handling of "pirate" websites being taken down, without court orders or do rights, does not convince you of this, then, I'm sorry you are you.

I mean, after all, the USA wouldn't do police state stuff like take down business (domains) without court orders or do rights. The same USA that would NEVER allow warrant less wiretaps.

Wake the fuck up.

 

Re:Cue it up... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411685)

Let me guess -- in a "real" police state, the police are soldiers, mass numbers of people are imprisoned without a fair trial, communications systems are built with government surveillance in mind, prisoners are a source of cheap labor, and the government uses propaganda to remind everyone that this is how life should be?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALEA [wikipedia.org]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT [wikipedia.org]

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/go-to-trial-crash-the-justice-system.html?_r=0 [nytimes.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_labor#United_States [wikipedia.org]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey [wikipedia.org]

Worse than China? No, not worse than China. Better? Well, at least we have not started harvesting organs from our millions of prisoners.

Re:Cue it up... (1)

halivar (535827) | about a year and a half ago | (#42411783)

Conveniently left off the list of comparisons: "Things that get you put into prison."

Things that get you out in prison (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42412901)

USA: Embarrasing the government
Uncovering corruption in the government
Recreational drugs while being poor
Being consistently black and poor.
Not being respectful to a police officer.
Buying books abroad.
Enabling ebook readers to help the blind read Adobe books.
Accessing a DoD server.

Re:Cue it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42413083)

Have you ever been to China?

Re:Cue it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42420727)

I don't think he's been to the US.
His mom's basement is way too comfy.

all central "authority" is the enemy of freedom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411403)

all large organizations are inherently corrupt, in that the "top" members stop caring about anything except amassing more power(wealth, influence, resources) for themselves

anonymity is the only true defense the powerless have against the powerful, that is why the powerful are working so hard to eliminate this threat

now is the time to create a distributed communication framework that can't be controlled by any government or corporation

http://project-byzantium.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
https://freenetproject.org/
http://www.i2p2.de/
https://code.commotionwireless.net/projects/commotion/wiki/Newbie_How_it_Works

unless you live in a hideous dictatorship running a node in pass through mode is virtually risk free and is something you can do RIGHT NOW to ensure freedom for your children and grandchildren in the future

DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411553)

The american DMCA already requirers you to register yourself with the goverment when ever you host a webpage or is an internet service provider (register at ICANN to get IP adressess). Any corporation can just say "copyright violation" and get the name of the person running the blog/microblog/facebook-account/webpage. I don't see any controversial news here.
The goverment of China just does what the US is pressuing them to implement. An efficent process to crackdown on copyright infrigment. The right,including copyright, to report what happens in the country belongs to the goverment.

New York Times need to contact me ASAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411577)

I have some depraved neighbors who are using net filtering software to restrict their children's internet activities.
This is a major story of inhumane censorship of American children right here at home.
NYT need to realize charity starts at home, and I'm not so interested in what those dirty Chinks do half way across the world than I am about my neighbors doing exactly the same thing right here at home.
So NYT call me ASAP for a huge scoop.

email: ImAMeddlingFucker@USA.com

Re:New York Times need to contact me ASAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42412273)

I have some depraved neighbors who are using net filtering software to restrict their children's internet activities.

That's correct. This makes us look like we're doing our bit to Think of the Children, even though we know they just come over to hang out with your kids whenever they want to see some gang banging or snuff clips.

Warm Regards,

Your Neighbors.

Mesh or HAM is the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42411629)

We need a mesh or HAM radio based internet. Something non-centralized and created by the people for the people that the government is powerless to step in and regulate.

No different here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42412195)

Except here it's banned if the government is told by commercial interests that it is objectionable.

Really.

That is the only difference and how you may still be able to call the EU/USA capitalist and China communist: Who is it who tells the government what to do?

China communism: The government department heads
EU/USA capitalism: The CEO of big companies.

Don't the Chinese know ... (1)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42412231)

Do the Chinese not know that putting a heavier weight on a pressure cooker increases the pressure? That the increased pressure increases the likelyhood of an explosion?

sounds great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42414969)

with all the nasty hacks, anonymous crap and everything, some proper control over the internet anarchy is what we all need.

regards,
anonymous coward

Equilibrium (1)

alistairk (2803493) | about a year ago | (#42418845)

I think a balance is needed here:- A lack of censorship and full-blown "dictator-style" censorshop are as bad as each other. Pro internet freedom activists will argue it is up to parents to shield their children from the filth on the Internet. This is however practically impossible as children and teenagers are increasing in computer knowledge at a faster rate than the previous generation. A complete lack of censorship is all good until you discover it's your children viewing the pornography which helps subconsciously shape their view of women and men in society. Does it come as a suprise that the strongest anti-censorship activists are young people without children? However full blown censorship in which a person cannot express his or her opinion is totally wrong either. Expression of opinion can help society grow and encourage debates in which society can come to rational decisions, which can in turn help develop society intellectually and morally. Dictators or political parties who dislike the opposition choose to silence their opponents through censorship which unfair, as this is enforcing their desires on the rest of society. To summarise, are pro/anti censorship activists acting in accordance to their own desires or do they truely want the best for society? As regards to China, unfortunately such laws will only be effective if backed up with physical brutality - another government tactic to forcefully enforce the law if society does not submit to the government's desires. Proxies are simply the answer to such censorship or underground ISPs which I'm sure will be an emerging market.

Re:Equilibrium (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#42420707)

A complete lack of censorship is all good until you discover it's your children viewing the pornography

There was never a work of pornography more obscene than censorship.

pornography which helps subconsciously shape their view of women and men in society.

The idea that some people can forcefully prevent others from expressing themselves shapes their views too, and in much more dangerous ways.

Plus, pornography only shapes our views of other people because of the grotesque tabus we have around 'sex', which ensure that porn is the kids' only source of information. Censoring just hides the problem, it doesn't fix it.

Does it come as a suprise that the strongest anti-censorship activists are young people without children?

Activists in general are young, and young people have less children. That says nothing about anti-censorship activists in particular.

Re:Equilibrium (1)

alistairk (2803493) | about a year ago | (#42421815)

1.) Linguistically you're first point may make sense but practically it does not. Censorship is not a form of pornography. 2.) I wouldn't call pronography a sound form of expression. Just look at the effects of it on our society. I hate to play the censorship card on this one but I am a realist - censoring people from material that is good for them is no different from preventing people from taking hard drugs such heroin. Or would you call injecting heroin an expression and that individual should continue to "express" themselves. Grosteque tabus around sex is one extreme and it's complete openess devoid of censorship is another. Like I said we need an equilibrium here. 3.) It may not but the correlation I am observing is that younger people such as myself have less reponsibility such as children. Therefore they are less likely to understand what it really means to have your children at risk on the internet, such as being exposed to uncensored pornography with all its genres. I read a good post on slashdot a few days back about how students are usually left-wing and anti-taxation, until they step into the real world after they've done their degree and start earning. peace

Re:Equilibrium (1)

alistairk (2803493) | about a year ago | (#42421829)

your*.

Re:Equilibrium (2)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year ago | (#42422241)

Linguistically you're first point may make sense but practically it does not. Censorship is not a form of pornography.

Not only pornography can be obscene.

I wouldn't call pronography a sound form of expression. Just look at the effects of it on our society.

Political speech, the protected speech by definition, brought us Fascism, National Socialism, Maoism and all the other political ideologies with millions of deaths in their history. Pornography has nothing on them in terms of "effects on society".

I hate to play the censorship card on this one but I am a realist - censoring people from material that is good for them is no different from preventing people from taking hard drugs such heroin.

I agree. Thankfully, where I live we've decriminalized the consumption of all drugs, including heroin. And usage dropped.

Grosteque tabus around sex is one extreme and it's complete openess devoid of censorship is another. Like I said we need an equilibrium here.

Soviet propaganda is an extreme, the truth is another, do we need an equilibrium? Argument to moderation is a fallacy; the middle term is not always the best course of action.

It may not but the correlation I am observing is that younger people such as myself have less reponsibility such as children. Therefore they are less likely to understand what it really means to have your children at risk on the internet, such as being exposed to uncensored pornography with all its genres.

Young people were themselves children not that long ago. But in any case, instead of making an ageist argument, you could instead provide evidence of those risks of uncensored pornography. I'll in turn provide the evidence of what censorship has caused throughout History.

I read a good post on slashdot a few days back about how students are usually left-wing and anti-taxation, until they step into the real world after they've done their degree and start earning.

You could attribute that to them being wiser. You could also attribute that to fear of losing their job. The status quo is always the choice of the average salaryman.

Re:Equilibrium (1)

alistairk (2803493) | about a year and a half ago | (#42425785)

Equating pornography with censorship will take me some time to get my head around. Again, you seem to take the polar opposite here by saying that censoring pornography will cause extreme political ideaology to prevail and we will go through other Holocaust. Those who advocate censorship are not all Facists and Maoists - they just want their future generation to have a higher view of women and more respect for them. Read and reflect on reports on how young boys are watching extreme pornographic, and then getting a girlfriend and trying the same things they have seen, which can cause the girl pain and emotional distress. You are right it is a fallacy that moderation is always the middle path. But it is also a fallacy to assume that all possible fallacies are certainly fallacies. When it comes to sex moderation is the best path as the effects of too little acknowledgement and "over-acknowledgement" is unhealthy for society. Simple example, too much or too little with your partner can be damaging to the relationship. When is comes to moderation, pornography will always lead to excess as it encourages a quick-route to satisfaction which will always be addictive. A quick route to pleasure without very little effort is very addictive regardless of the vice. Age is definately a factor in determing how people think and view life. Our thoughts evolve everyday - this doesn't make me "ageist" as you describe, it's not suprising a pro-pornography person such as yourself will be quick to make me out to be discriminatory and try make yourself out to be the hero. Now I guess im "anti-liberalist" for pointing out your modus operandi. But pornography will always discourage moderation as it is a quick-route to satisfaction where one can bypass all the usual steps involved to gaining that pleasure with a partner. http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm [protectkids.com] However I'm sure you know statistics aren't everything so what is required here is a rational logical debate. Statistics will only get us so far so we must think these issues through logically. If we are to play your card we could use correlation does not imply causation for censorship effecting negatively/postively society over the years. This is the typical liberal argument except when it works in their favour. They will often goto extremes making their opponent out to be a right-wing facist. All I'm asking is for you consider one question:- "Are you fine with your children growing up in an unrestricted internet environment that could expose them to rape scenes, extreme pornography and self-multilation?" If so, then this is your choice.

Re:Equilibrium (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42427463)

Again, you seem to take the polar opposite here by saying that censoring pornography will cause extreme political ideaology to prevail and we will go through other Holocaust.

No, that's not what I said or meant.

You argued that we should ban pornography due to its harmful nature to society.

I'm saying that political speech has itself caused much more harm, therefore by your argument, it should be censored too.

Those who advocate censorship are not all Facists and Maoists - they just want their future generation to have a higher view of women and more respect for them.

Sure, and I don't doubt that.

But the issue that renders censorship to be so dangerous is that there was never an implementation of it that wasn't abused by those who chose what was censored, either by incompetence or malice.
Even in Australia, a democratic country by all accounts, had plenty of innocent sites banned by their online filters.

The fact that the classification is usually extremely murky (just try to get ten people to agree on a definition of "pornography") just makes things worse.

Furthermore, I have an issue with banning pornography being a women respecting action.

When women enjoy making and publishing their own porn [guardian.co.uk] for other women, which focus on their needs and pleasures, and we tell them to shut up because what they're doing is "forbidden", are we really respecting them? Or are we being patronizing and actually disrespecting them even more?

Frankly, I find the idea that we should decide for women if they should do pornography or not to be abhorrent and extremely disrespectful of their will as free individuals.

Read and reflect on reports on how young boys are watching extreme pornographic, and then getting a girlfriend and trying the same things they have seen, which can cause the girl pain and emotional distress.

Sure, and I find that terrible. But why did the boy try that, if it caused pain on the girl?

Either he didn't know it would - and then I argue the real problem is the lack of education that ensure the kids remain completely ignorant about such issues, and that porn is the only source of "knowledge" they have, and the solution is not to ban porn but to teach and make more, good porn which respects everyone involved.

Or the kid didn't care about the pain it would cause, in which case I think it's obvious why porn is not the real issue.

In either case, pornography seems like a scapegoat we use to avoid seeing the flaws that the parents and other educators in our society have, and the harm they are imposing.

When is comes to moderation, pornography will always lead to excess as it encourages a quick-route to satisfaction which will always be addictive. A quick route to pleasure without very little effort is very addictive regardless of the vice.

Maybe; but that doesn't mean it should be banned.

Age is definately a factor in determing how people think and view life. Our thoughts evolve everyday - this doesn't make me "ageist" as you describe

No, the fact that you think people of a certain age are necessarily "more right" does.

it's not suprising a pro-pornography person such as yourself will be quick to make me out to be discriminatory and try make yourself out to be the hero. Now I guess im "anti-liberalist" for pointing out your modus operandi.

I'm not pro-pornography, I'm anti-censorship. I defend the right of people expressing themselves, regardless of whether it is by having sex or by wearing a Swastika, as long as they don't violate the rights of others.

And of course you're discriminatory. So am I, so are all of us, it's part of the human condition. But we should point it out when we see it, and try to correct it.

However I'm sure you know statistics aren't everything so what is required here is a rational logical debate. Statistics will only get us so far so we must think these issues through logically. If we are to play your card we could use correlation does not imply causation for censorship effecting negatively/postively society over the years. This is the typical liberal argument except when it works in their favour. They will often goto extremes making their opponent out to be a right-wing facist.

I'm not a liberal, I'm not american, and I don't care what they do or find that relevant.

All I'm asking is for you consider one question:- "Are you fine with your children growing up in an unrestricted internet environment that could expose them to rape scenes, extreme pornography and self-multilation?" If so, then this is your choice.

It is only my choice because it's not censored, for now.

That question creates a false choice, between censorship and complete lack of restrictions.

I want to have the freedom of deciding what restrictions I should put on my own children, what they should be or not allowed to access without restrictions, and at what age. I don't want you to decide for me.

And I certainly don't want you to choose for me what I, as an adult, should be able to say, share, publish or watch.

Re:Equilibrium (1)

alistairk (2803493) | about a year and a half ago | (#42428217)

Freedom and self-expression is all well and good until you become a victim of it.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...