×

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!

Chinese Gov't To Tighten Internet Controls Even Further

timothy posted about 5 months ago | from the razing-the-global-village dept.

Censorship 162

jfruh writes "The new Chinese leadership released a document outlining its vision for the country Friday, and most of the attention was paid to reforms, like plans to loosen state control of the economy and end the one-child policy. But when it comes to the Internet, the Chinese Communist government is doubling down on its restrictive policies. The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things, and plans to bolster its regulatory systems and increase the scope of their legal authority."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

162 comments

BUT SNOWDEN (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45463827)

Cue all the OMG SNOWDEN responses about how this isn't so bad because the US incidentally collects US persons information while trying to stop terror plots. Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (4, Insightful)

Antipater (2053064) | about 5 months ago | (#45463929)

That's like saying we shouldn't have had a Civil Rights movement because at least we weren't killing our minorities like Germany did; we were just oppressing them.

"Y is worse than X" does not mean that X is not also bad.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45463967)

The key part of the parent comment was:

--->Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 5 months ago | (#45465211)

But then who would make all the stuff we buy, but refuse to pay American workers a decent living wage to produce so we export it to reduce production costs while maximizing the companies profits and then bitch cause there are no more jobs for Americans.

Argghhh it's so confusing.

Seriously China is not the monster it once was. I'd say them relaxing their economic controls as well as the restrictions on the number of children is a huge step forward. Not to mention the economic growth the countries had due to all the manufacturing that got imported there.

Also keep in mind the last few times bat shit crazy North Korea said "we're gonna bomb" China has distanced itself from a country that was once their ally.

I see them as having come a long way from where they were during the Tienanmen days.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (3, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | about 5 months ago | (#45463971)

Yeah, it's not wise to stop holding our government to account. I'd rather the US set an example for the worse countries by reining in its bribe-happy CIA, bringing the troops home from profit wars, closing GTMO, and stopping espionage that is not required to stop a known and imminent threat to lives.

Or I guess we can adopt the motto "Still more tolerant and less bloody than Genghis Khan!" but it doesn't quite radiate that exceptional aura.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45463993)

Yeah we all heard about the "Great Firewall" of China (X), but it seems they are now taking a page out of the israeli book, with their false-flags and the "APARTHEID WALL" (Y).
any news about how amdocs and akamai are effected by this disturbing development?

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (2)

Jahta (1141213) | about 5 months ago | (#45464449)

That's like saying we shouldn't have had a Civil Rights movement because at least we weren't killing our minorities like Germany did; we were just oppressing them.

"Y is worse than X" does not mean that X is not also bad.

Very true. "We're not winning the race to the bottom" is no cause for celebration.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464509)

I think the point is that it is easier to come to hate an idolized figure. When the idol, be it a hero in a comic book or nation, does something to tarnish your perfected view of what they are, it turns into disgust and hate much easier than if something you don't like does it.

The perfect USA viewed as a kid and told about as a kid, reveals what is under the national propaganda (be honest, every nation does this) and the disillusionment evokes a stronger counter-reaction.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 5 months ago | (#45464825)

I don't think that's what he's saying; rather, he's mocking those who do make that kind of argument.

I've seen it happen on slashdot where an article about chinese censorship brings posts (that even get high moderation) that talk about how the US government is supposedly worse.

Doesn't happen a lot these days, but during the Bush years it was obligatory as part of any post about foreign government censorship on slashdot.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465667)

The Hitler Test:

http://therebel.org/news/kaminski/the-hitler-test/

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45463959)

But... but... this is China, and it is a good country because it isn't European/American, doesn't like the US, and provides me all the $99 cent socks I want, as well as $2.99 cat food. Exposing corruption there might entail some actual risk to life and limb as opposed to the easy low-hanging fruit of watching the circus in DC where everyone can complain without fear of waking up in pieces.

Now where is that sarcasm tag...

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#45465161)

This is China. Communist China. You kinda expect it to be oppressive, backwards, anti-liberty and stuff. Or so my propaganda minister told me.

But in the shiny beacon of freedom, liberty and happiness for everyone that the US is, it is very shocking to read anything like that.

And yes, we really need a sarcasm tag.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464365)

Cry more, nigger lips.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (2)

maharvey (785540) | about 5 months ago | (#45464545)

Wake up, everyone: a lot of other countries are a lot worse and deserve your vitriol more.

Are they? Or are they just further along in their plans? Everything that other countries are doing, your govt wants to do, and would if they thought they could get away with it. No govt is better than others, just some leashes are shorter than others.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#45465199)

Yes, but China is way further away than the US, and its policies have a lot less impact on me than the ones in the US. Not only because the US is a more important economy partner of my country, but also because our politicians here are mostly "monkey see, monkey do" when it comes to the US. Even aside of "treaties" (aka adhesion contracts) where they're pretty much forced to do their bidding, they tend to mimic what they see across the pond with some faithfulness that is rather terrifying.

So if China sticks a government surveillance cam up everyone's ass it will by no margin affect me as much as if the US started to ponder thinking about putting one on every porch.

Re:BUT SNOWDEN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465201)

I see the Chinese shills have modded you into oblivion, as expected.

The trend in China (4, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45463905)

More economic freedom, social freedom is mixed, and continuing or tighter political control.

It will be interesting to see if they continue the trend of relatively more economic freedom into the future since the new leadership is harkening back to the old ways. "Where are the true communists?"

Re:The trend in China (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#45464601)

The true communists were never in government. Just like any idealists who actually strive to live their ideals, going into governance is seen as at best an unwanted duty and the first step towards compromise. The opportunists like Mao had no such qualms.

Re:The trend in China (1)

lil_DXL (3432951) | about 5 months ago | (#45465163)

Communists aren't allowed to join the communist party anymore, even left-leaning members (like Bo Xilai) aren't allowed anymore. Funny little factoid about the CCP: back in 2005, party leaders discussed changing the party's name from CCP to Chinese Republican Party, but rejected the idea since a splinter Communist party may appear... sniff sniff

Re:The trend in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465659)

rejected the idea since a splinter Communist party may appear.

That's impossible. There can be and always has been only one party in China! Saying otherwise is classified as treasonous counter revolutionary terror speak.

Re:The trend in China (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#45465259)

They move from dictatorship of the party to dictatorship of money without the detour to democracy. They're kinda more efficient than we are, we took that detour.

at least they're honest (4, Insightful)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#45463909)

tfs:

The document notes that social networking and instant messaging tools can rapidly disseminate information and mobilize society; the government doesn't think those are good things

This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

Re:at least they're honest (4, Insightful)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#45463969)

This is what I love about China. They're completely up front about who they are. In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

Every country has it's bogeymen (a/k/a government excuses). Here it's "terrorism", over there I think "social disharmony" or some such . The funny thing about manure is that it smells the same wherever you go.

Re:at least they're honest (2, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45464039)

Every country has it's bogeymen (a/k/a government excuses). Here it's "terrorism",

Bogeymen are generally considered imaginary and don't have a body count. That isn't an accurate description of terrorism in the US. It has both an existing body count and a continuing series of arrests and convictions. (Which is also a handy fact to consider when the subject of "magic rocks" comes up.)

The funny thing about manure is that it smells the same wherever you go.

There seems to be some disagreement about the identification of manure.

Re:at least they're honest (4, Insightful)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 5 months ago | (#45464379)

If a 9/11 scale attack occurred in the US every month, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a terror attack. The degree to which we fear terrorism relative to the actual risk is way out of proportion. If someone proposed things like indefinite detention or wide scale monitoring to prevent bad driving, they'd rightly be seen as a paranoid nut.

Re:at least they're honest (3, Interesting)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45464477)

If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack. The degree to which people confuse the significance of random chance accidents versus deaths caused by willful human action is appalling. Indefinite detention is how prisoners of war are held. Indefinite detention isn't really appropriate for traffic incidents short of murder.

Re:at least they're honest (2)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | about 5 months ago | (#45464767)

If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack.

And indeed we seem to be putting very little effort into protecting Hawaii from Japanese sneak attacks right now.

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464805)

If a 12 / 7 / 1941 attack occurred on the US every month in 1941, you'd still be statistically more likely to die in a car accident than in a Japanese attack. The degree to which people confuse the significance of random chance accidents versus deaths caused by willful human action is appalling. Indefinite detention is how prisoners of war are held. Indefinite detention isn't really appropriate for traffic incidents short of murder.

What is more appalling is the lack of respect people have for driving and just how dangerous it really is. People put everyone's life at risk (including their own) every day by not paying 100% attention to the situation on the road. For some reason, it's "ok" to drive through stop signs and red lights, so long as no one dies.

Willful human action is only about 1/4 as scary as willful human inaction...

Re:at least they're honest (2)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 5 months ago | (#45464813)

I believe what they are saying with the comparison is that there is zero chance of al Qaida or some other "Islamist" bogeyman becoming more of a threat to the United States than pulling off an occasional lightning strike. Invading multiple countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, sowing the seeds of future conflict, and printing trillions of dollars to pay for it is an appalling overreaction to a unique event. This was understood in the USA as recently as the 1970s when we didn't invade South America over the actions of a few criminal groups.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 5 months ago | (#45465441)

We need indefinite detention for sellers of Rubber Duckies. Rubber Duckiesin bath tubs have killed more people via slip and fall than 9/11 -- something MUST BE DONE!

>> Please don't take this as a tacit agreement on my part that any future False Flags need to up the ante to prove to us how much we need 1 million people involved in the "security apparatus." Stop hiring consultants from the former Stazi for instance.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 5 months ago | (#45464385)

Bogeymen are generally considered imaginary and don't have a body count.

Fortunately for us, most terrorists do indeed seem to be bogeymen.

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464429)

I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman? At least I'm a good dancer - a boogieman.

Perhaps you mean boogeyman?

Re:at least they're honest (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 5 months ago | (#45464607)

I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman?

No, but if you're one of the many imaginary terrorists, you might just be a bogeyman.

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464865)

I suck at golf, does that make me a bogeyman? At least I'm a good dancer - a boogieman.

Perhaps you mean boogeyman?

Nope [reference.com]

Re:at least they're honest (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#45464397)

A body count that, most years, kills fewer Americans domestically than lightning strikes.

Lightning averages 51 deaths a year, so a big attack can push it over. For comparison, the most recent 'major' attack at the Boston marathon achieved three deaths.

Re:at least they're honest (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 5 months ago | (#45464441)

And I think the government did more to inconvenience and harass most people after the bombing than the actual terrorists did.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 5 months ago | (#45465463)

However it could be argued that the bad guys "saved lives" because they stopped traffic and that lowered the overall death rate in Boston.

Boy, we number crunchers are a cold bunch!

Re:at least they're honest (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 5 months ago | (#45464697)

'Kill' isn't the only possible outcome. How many maimings are caused by lightning v. "terrorism"?

Re:at least they're honest (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#45465399)

By now I think the body count for our reaction to terrorism outweighs that of terrorism itself by some margin.

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464769)

We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.

The thing about terrorism is that its goal is to create fear, and the only defense to fear is a sense of security. There is of course a balance of how much fear there is vs how much freedom people should have. For example, Its OK for someone to have a knife as there's are reasons they need it, but I still wouldn't give my 3 year old a knife, and say GO HAVE FUN! Children our considered less intelligent and less mature, so this example is pretty clear. The less clear examples, are where bravado and showmanship limit discussion.

Its also worth noting that if a terrorist were to get a nuclear bomb, or just a dirty bomb, they could kill an entire city and prevent that city from being liveable. While, I hope that risk is VERY low, the truth is no one really knows. People that we would expect to know are the ones asking for all the information, so they can figure out that risk. There is of course a problem that if you give someone too much they will naturally try to use that information to do things, that go beyond what we as a society are OK with.

Its nice to quote people in the past and be like, they said freedom is the most important thing. The people in the past didn't face today's problems. I think people forget to be realistic and focus on the logistics of protecting our way of life. There are people in this world who want a way of life where certain sections of the population dead. While, I don't think its fair to blame people for support giving people more power, if it means they can avoid a risk of death. That's not to say there are not limits.

The best way I can sum this up is, that transparency protects against internal threats and information obscurity protects against external threats. A system of trust is the best way to figure out which group to give information to and which information to hide things from. One reason the united states political system has very little trust is because of how elections are funded. The Chinese government removes peoples input from there political process and relies on an oligarchy style of leadership. The problem with the oligarchy style is that its incredibly difficult to prevent corruption of the people who are governing the system. This can lead to people overacting to situations, and destabilizing the government before there's a chance to response.

Problems on a large scale are rarely as simple as they appear to be to an outside observer. However, asking how to solve the problems leads to issues being clear to people who are intelligent enough to understand implications of different polices.

Re:at least they're honest (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 5 months ago | (#45464867)

We have entire groups dedicated to stopping car deaths. There are also projects to help reduce lighting deaths.

Both of which are probably nothing compared to how much we waste on 'security' and the military.

and the only defense to fear is a sense of security.

Which means that violating people's rights and spending trillions of dollars trying to stop a problem that's nearly nonexistent probably isn't a very good idea.

There is of course a balance of how much fear there is vs how much freedom people should have.

Balance? To me, freedom is the absolute top priority. Safety isn't even near the top for me.

I think people forget to be realistic and focus on the logistics of protecting our way of life.

We won't even have a way of life if we discard it for security. What happened to having principles? What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave? What happened to not being complete cowards? Nothing happened. People are as naive and idiotic as ever, I'd say.

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465065)

"Balance? To me, freedom is the absolute top priority. Safety isn't even near the top for me."
If freedom is the most important thing, Will you post your address on here ? Will you give me your full name ? WIll you give me your cell phone number? How about, would you give a crazy person a gun ?

"Both of which are probably nothing compared to how much we waste on 'security' and the military."
How do you define waste ? While I am not saying there isn't a military complex driving development for some crazy projects. There are allot of side benefits and really that's an entirely different conversation.

"Which means that violating people's rights and spending trillions of dollars trying to stop a problem that's nearly nonexistent probably isn't a very good idea."
If you feel there's not a problem, then please travel to Afghanistan or Iraq, just go to the shops and see how long you live. You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like. Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.

"We won't even have a way of life if we discard it for security. What happened to having principles? What happened to being the land of the free and the home of the brave? What happened to not being complete cowards? Nothing happened. People are as naive and idiotic as ever, I'd say."
How does trusting people violate your principals ? More importantly what principals do you have ? Clearly, you have never lived anywhere other then the United States. If you have visited one of the countries in the euro zone, please stop and remember there social policies have them in a bit of a physical crunch. Also, keep in mind there history. Is there a country you think has more freedom then the United States ?

Re:at least they're honest (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 5 months ago | (#45465373)

If freedom is the most important thing, Will you post your address on here ? Will you give me your full name ? WIll you give me your cell phone number? How about, would you give a crazy person a gun ?

What? That makes absolutely zero sense. I said that freedom is most important to me, and now you're asking me to waste my time posting information about myself? How does this at all relate to the government violating people's rights? Spoiler: It doesn't.

How do you define waste ?

As in... wasting money on killing people and starting pointless wars.

If you feel there's not a problem

I said that the problem is nearly nonexistent. I live in the US. The problem is nearly nonexistent.

You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like.

You clearly lack intelligence of the point I was making.

Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.

Considering that they violate people's rights too, yeah.

How does trusting people violate your principals ?

What violates my principles is when the government violates people's freedoms in the name of security.

More importantly what principals do you have ?

That freedom is worth taking risks for. That we should not sacrifice freedom for security a grand majority of the time.

Clearly, you have never lived anywhere other then the United States.

I don't know how you reach these nonsensical conclusions, and even more, I have no idea how any of this is relevant. Such garbage.

If you have visited one of the countries in the euro zone, please stop and remember there social policies have them in a bit of a physical crunch. Also, keep in mind there history.

What's this!? More irrelevancies!? It can't be!

Is there a country you think has more freedom then the United States ?

Saying that X is better than Y does not make X good. Killing ten babies might be 'better' than killing 100 babies, but neither are good things to me. Likewise, just because the US is better in some ways compared to other countries does not mean its negatives should be ignored. Bringing up other countries is utterly irrelevant. Enough with the irrelevancies.

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45466057)

What? That makes absolutely zero sense. I said that freedom is most important to me, and now you're asking me to waste my time posting information about myself? How does this at all relate to the government violating people's rights? Spoiler: It doesn't.

The government has your address, in some cases you cell phone, and allot of other information about you. Its your expectation that they keep that information protected. In other words, you don't want an entirely transparent government.That information is needed for a lot of reasons. For example, if you get a ticket for parking your car the government mails you a ticket, as you own the car you are responsible for the ticket. Again, freedom is important, but it requires a balance to security, just as you likely don't want someone with a gun to shoot you, you just expect that the government will balance out how it controls guns. However, you seem to have allot of expectations with out any concern for how those expectations come to be put in place. (More on that below..)

"How do you define waste ?"
"As in... wasting money on killing people and starting pointless wars."

While, I do agree conflict should be avoided, if it can't the longer conflict is delayed the more it will cost to fix the problem. For example, in Iran, everyone wants a peaceful resolution to Iran giving up nuclear weapons. Some groups think that Iran won't ever give up trying to get nukes, therefore going to war has less of cost now then later. The idea here is the more time spent waiting gives the other side time to prepare. Anther example here is ww2 where germony was allowed to invade Austria.

If you feel there's not a problem
"I said that the problem is nearly nonexistent. I live in the US. The problem is nearly nonexistent."
The reason theres not a problem in the US is because of the efforts that are taken. Policy are on the streets, and nuclear material is kept out of the hands of crazy people. Even with all that the US does there are still cases where someone manages to blow up buildings. The polices and infrastructure that exists in our government is good compared to allot of countries.

"You clearly lack intelligence of what the over seas situation is like."
"You clearly lack intelligence of the point I was making."
Your the one explaining your point...why not explain it better instead of responding in the way you did? My point is that if you look at other countries and how they solve different problems you can better understand why the U.S does somethings vs others. Its also, more clear at what the us does well and what they don't do well at. Something you seem to have no problem trying to argue about, even though you are less informed and not using much information to back it up...see my point about bravado from above...

Its also worth noting you would probably say we are wasting money on border security.
Considering that they violate people's rights too, yeah.
Rights are things that you are guaranteed. My point to there being a balance, is that you only have a right to do something as long as it doesn't violate someone elses right to do something. In situations where there is a conflict, the goal is to protect the greats number of people with out unjustly imposing on anther group. For example, Its not fair for the government to be able to search everyone and everything any time. This would limit the ability of people to go about there daily life. However, the government can search you or anyone if the situation is strange or unusual, because you could potential kill someone, and if you have any understanding of timelines, killing someone prevents them from ANY right to do ANYTHING. Do you want an anarchy where everyone can do what ever they want with out concern for how it impacts others ? There are limits, and those limits impact the overall type of government that exists.

"How does trusting people violate your principals ?"
"What violates my principles is when the government violates people's freedoms in the name of security."
A government is just a group of people who agree to certain things. Please see social contract for more information. I think what you mean is compromise someones freedoms in the name of security. Some times life requires compromise in order to achieve certain things, like for example having a safe place to live. You have more freedom in Iraq,Afghanistan, and China. Its just about what happens when you step out of line (i.e impact someone elses rights as they see them) and how its handled. The end result IMHO, is the U.S is a good place to live.

"More importantly what principals do you have ?"
"That freedom is worth taking risks for. That we should not sacrifice freedom for security a grand majority of the time."
There is risk no matter what happens. However, you don't have the right to risk my life, just because you think that there are no terrorists and that border security dosn't do anything. Leave the United States Of America if you feel it doesn't offer enough freedom. Your no contributing anything useful anyways. I think if you look at the world, you will see the U.S has allot to offer.

"Clearly, you have never lived anywhere other then the United States."
"I don't know how you reach these nonsensical conclusions, and even more, I have no idea how any of this is relevant. Such garbage."
Clearly, instead of seeking understanding your insulating me and my reasoning, with out a good basis for doing so. What happen to rights and freedoms ? My points stand that you aren't looking to make things better or really talk. I don't think waste much more time on trying to help you understand my point is a good investment.

"If you have visited one of the countries in the euro zone, please stop and remember there social policies have them in a bit of a physical crunch. Also, keep in mind there history."
"What's this!? More irrelevancies!? It can't be!"
Yet again, nothing helpful or useful to say. I suspect you rarely, get a chance to meet intelligent people or have good conversation, because your tone, limits the people who will spend time talking with you or trying to come up with new ideas.

Is there a country you think has more freedom then the United States ?
"Saying that X is better than Y does not make X good. Killing ten babies might be 'better' than killing 100 babies, but neither are good things to me. Likewise, just because the US is better in some ways compared to other countries does not mean its negatives should be ignored. Bringing up other countries is utterly irrelevant. Enough with the irrelevancies.ee how 2 issues relate to each other. "
If every country except one was killing 100 babies, where would you go live ? Likely, you would consider the facts of all the different places, before making conclusions (atleast most people do..maybe not you..). Asking for a counter point to use in conversation is hardly, condoning something else. Also, hyperbole may be useful to show a point its hardly needed for such a simple question question. Yet again, an example where you assume you know what I am thinking or am getting at yet when you don't you insult the new idea.

You haven't offered one solution to a problem or even suggest a reason for why there's are where they are which would benefit the people reading it. Perhaps its just the internet is just not good at hear different viewpoints..While, you may think talking does something, its hardly useful if your points don't make sense to a person or if the ideas don't become something....

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465787)

Gotta love a good strawman argument.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 5 months ago | (#45464575)

bogeyman (bmæn) —n , pl -men a person, real or imaginary, used as a threat, esp to children Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition

An entirely appropriate use of the term in this case

Re:at least they're honest (1)

harvestsun (2948641) | about 5 months ago | (#45464909)

Could you not say that social disharmony has a body count as well? But in both cases, the question is: do the ends justify the means? Are the amount of terrorism related deaths prevented worth the sacrifice of privacy/freedom?

Unlike China, the USA is a democracy, and is built on the premise that such questions should be up to the general populace to decide. This cannot happen if information is kept hidden from the public, for no better reason than "such information might aid terrorists!". At a minimum, the president should be aware of these actions, since he is the one whom the people have entrusted with executive power.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 5 months ago | (#45465279)

Just because I can hit random animals over the head with the rock and call them tigers doesn't mean the rock protects me from actual tigers.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 5 months ago | (#45465299)

The thing about terrorism is that I'd sooner take my chances ending up on that body count list than sacrifice personal freedoms and privacy for perceived security, in which I'm no more secure than prior to those incidents.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 5 months ago | (#45465409)

There seems to be some disagreement about the identification of manure.

No, I think it pretty much identifies the ter'rism bogieman and people who blog like 100% of assassinations and arrests are all 100% accurate and that this small sample reflects that 100% of the reports and scares were justified.

Since lightning kills 10x more people, we need to strip search everyone for wires and spend $4 trillion putting up lightning rods ever 10 meters or so -- just to have a commensurate threat/response profile.

Re:at least they're honest (2)

CRCulver (715279) | about 5 months ago | (#45464095)

The Chinese bogeyman is somewhat more realistic. Terrorism has never been a real danger to Americans (as horrible as 9/11 was, less than 4000 people were killed, just compare that to road statistics). On the other hand, social unrest with huge numbers of dead has continually erupted through Chinese history. Now, I don't think that merely allowing Facebook is necessarily going to lead to that again, and I personally would prefer to see more emphasis on individual rights in China, but the Chinese government obviously wants to tread cautiously, and they have fairly broad support because the population is convinced of the danger too.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 5 months ago | (#45465361)

Living under a certain rule for generations you would be convinced as well.

Russia proved communism doesn't work, here we are in the US proving that capitalism is failing at least for citizens. At least with communism you have corrupt officials to worry about, here it's corrupt officials and corporations that trample the people.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45463981)

In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

No, the US is equally up front about that, you just doubt the motive.

Re:at least they're honest (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#45464059)

No, the US is equally up front about that

So the Snowden revelations about domestic surveillance were old news?

Re:at least they're honest (0)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45464505)

The US is up front about its surveillance and intelligence being directed against terrorism.

As to the Snowden leaks, a lot of that ground was covered in 2006 or before.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

spacepimp (664856) | about 5 months ago | (#45465855)

What they are not up front about is the surveillance of all citizens of the US and how that data is used and shared among other acronym groups, who shouldn't have access to this data any more than the NSA should. If you are wondering what I am talking about watch Clapper's response to Wyden about phone data, and come back here and say the NSA is up front about what it is doing...

They aren't up front about shit, if they are lying to their own citizens about their activity.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 5 months ago | (#45464107)

In the US everything needs to be carefully cloaked in terms of protection from terrorists.

No, the US is equally up front about that, you just doubt the motive.

You discover motive by examining how the term "terrorist" is defined.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 5 months ago | (#45464515)

Yes. And that definition seems to be sticking pretty close to terrorism, not "terrorism."

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465329)

I have never, for one moment, felt in danger from terrorists. U.S. law enforcement on the other hand..

Re:at least they're honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464015)

They are pretty open about all of their forced labor camps too.

Oh wait...

Re:at least they're honest (1)

auric_dude (610172) | about 5 months ago | (#45464435)

The Forum in Beijing Bridget Kendall chairs a wide-ranging discussion in Beijing about the internet in China: does the rise of digital communication empower the Chinese individual or the state? How is the social media explosion changing the nature of Chinese society? How much is free expression really curtailed by the Great Firewall of China and the recent legislation aimed at curbing the spread of 'rumours' on the net? And is the ability to share the minutiae of their lives online making the young in China politically apathetic? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kdgtr [bbc.co.uk] Airs views from both government spokes persons and those using the internet as to what the people want, need and are allowed.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

poity (465672) | about 5 months ago | (#45464835)

Is this why you love the GOP over the Democrats? They're pretty honest in comparison, if recent history is any indication.

Re:at least they're honest (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#45464991)

Is this why you love the GOP over the Democrats? They're pretty honest in comparison, if recent history is any indication.

Tbh I haven't seen much of a distinction here. I think it's very notable that the repubs have been flaming Obama over any little perceived goof, but they've been completely mum about all of the NSA stuff. I think dems and repubs agree on this issue. Dems have been more guilty recently because Obama is in office, but repubs were more guilty before because Bush was in office.

Generally I lean Dem although my internal compass has been changing recently. But in this issue I can't find any safe harbor. Even Rand Paul has been mum. I guess the best thing I can do is support EFF? Any advice is appreciated.

Re:at least they're honest (2)

spacepimp (664856) | about 5 months ago | (#45465963)

Support the EFF, but you're missing some major points here. This is not a bipartisan issue. It's not Republican vs Democrat. It has divided parties and in many ways that is a good thing. It stomps out the party line and lets people find a common ground of interest not pandering to a lobby.
There are plenty of Republicans up in arms about this. One quite visible has been Sensenbrenner who authored the Patriot Act and saying they are deliberately abusing the spirit of the Act, which was codified to directly avoid mass collection of data on citizens. If you missed that then you haven't paid a bit of attention. Secondly Rand Paul has been quite vocal about what is occurring, and even gone so far as to publicly state he assumes the NSA is spying on Obama.

Re:at least they're honest (1)

khallow (566160) | about 5 months ago | (#45465485)

They're completely up front about who they are.

Yea, right. Everything is carefully cloaked in terms of social stability and order. It's just a slightly different flavored hypocrisy than what you're used to.

I'm not here to whitewash the US's sins, but to point out that once again, we see the double standard of ignoring comparable sins in China.

not coincidence (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45463925)

Call me a cynic, but it seems like more than coincidence that China would tighten the reins on Internet use at the same time as they publicly announce relaxing the one child policy.

Sounds like a government becoming even more authoritarian, but throwing the people a bone to distract from the serious issues..

Congrats, China, you're learning how to be repressive, American style!

Re:not coincidence (2)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 5 months ago | (#45463999)

it seems like more than coincidence that China would tighten the reins on Internet use at the same time as they publicly announce relaxing the one child policy. Sounds like a government becoming even more authoritarian, but throwing the people a bone to distract from the serious issues.

The one child policy is a much bigger deal than a bone.

Re:not coincidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465079)

It's also something that was bound to happen, a one-child policy is not sustainable.

Re:not coincidence (1)

joe_frisch (1366229) | about 5 months ago | (#45464487)

Of course its not a coincidence. China is run by centralized authoritarian government that carefully plans policies for its own good - which sometimes benefits the population as well: in general it is better to rule a prosperous peaceful country rather than a poor rebellious one.

Unlike the US, China does not pretend to be a free society. Personally I find that less distasteful than American hypocrisy. The US is still considerably less oppressive, but we are doing our best to close that gap.

Great place to live (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45463931)

/sarcasm mode, cowardly said

Summary and article are vacuous (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#45463991)

The summary, and the few paragraphs constituting the "article" itself, are almost pure interpretation with virtually no specific facts.

What's wrong with social media? (1)

NewVegasGod (3437745) | about 5 months ago | (#45464097)

Seriously? Since when has mobilization been a bad thing? And dissemination can be a good thing, under a certain light.

A flashmob (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 5 months ago | (#45464127)

A flashmob in Tiananmen Square just for 10 seconds to take a few pictures and dissolve?

That's the only thing coming to my mind.
Is that what they are afraid?

What if they went plaintext only? (3, Interesting)

ModernGeek (601932) | about 5 months ago | (#45464165)

Imagine an Internet where anything that wasn't unencoded unicode or ascii where only recognizable dictionary words and standard protocols were allowed.

Imagine everybody being restricted to running iDevices where they could not install any unauthorized software on their computers.

Imagine that if it were encrypted, the government always had the private key, and the encryption was only there as a facade. The only public keys you'd have on your machine were the government's decoy keys.

Imagine if all software developers were targeted by the government with surveillance and public scrutiny to ensure that no illegal tools were being built.

It isn't that hard to foresee this future.

Re:What if they went plaintext only? (2)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about 5 months ago | (#45464469)

A lot of people are already living in this future you describe. I will try and fight going there as long as possible.

Re:What if they went plaintext only? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464581)

We are there now, almost. One popular social networking site will always reject PGP encrypted PMs between people as spam.

Don't forget iDevices do not allow the user to remove trusted keys, so if $FRUIT trusts a CA, you have to trust them or don't play in their ballgame.

Encryption is a facade on a lot of devices. With no control of the device, how can one be sure that it isn't allowing backdoor access to stored files? Some phones, this is easy to do. Others, good luck, as if the endpoint is monitored, no encryption can help.

Re:What if they went plaintext only? (2)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 5 months ago | (#45465499)

It isn't that hard to foresee this future.

We're practically there already. Give it another ten years and you will have a generation of programmers whose only conception of a computer is a gated iDevice, and a general public who were never able to see the difference anyway.

It's only a matter of time before ISPs introduce rate deals for those using specific devices/apps, with hard coded restrictions on what can actually be connected to. The result will be an increase in ratesa and fees for everyone who wants a general present day standard connection. At that point, the internet as we know it will no longer exist.

Classic IT moment (2)

imatter (2749965) | about 5 months ago | (#45464243)

I picture some crazy politician in China running over to the wall and yanking the ethernet right out of socket, most likely stripping the wires in the process. This happened to me while I was investigating a compromised FTP server. IT guy walked in yanked the cable right out of the wall.

either that or... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45464547)

They don't want their folks to provide easy info for the NSA to sniff.

miNus 3, Troll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465221)

faster, cheaper, peocple 4laying can

China is an incompetent version of the West (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45465459)

A tin-pot dictator in a third world hell hole is renown for locking up people who merely openly mock him with jokes at his expense. BUT in a first world hell hole, the 'anger' of the sheeple is DISSIPATED by comedy shows on TV that 'roast' the most powerful leaders of the nation with the nastiest critical material.

An incompetent police state looks to create uniformed government goons that create fear in the heart of every citizen. A Blair/Obama police state, on the other hand, educates the sheeple to think THEY are the ones demanding the changes to their society.

Take the UK. The mainstream media is centrally controlled, of course, with the owners of every major media corporation being part of the establishment. The mainstream media comes in various SYNTHETIC FLAVOURS, so each type of sheeple (say 'liberal', or 'socialist', or 'conservative', or 'elitist', or 'old school working class' or whatever) can find an outlet that seems to match his/her world view.

When those that rule the UK want new laws or powers in a particular direction, they don't simply impose such changes on the sheeple- no, they spend a year or two running carefully crafted media campaigns that APPEAR to represent some genuine grassroots concern. The people of the UK rarely get an impression that higher forces are pulling the strings, or that the campaigns in their newspapers of choice represent political PR actions crafted at the highest levels.

Britain is about to get the most censored Internet of any major nation on the planet, INCLUDING China. Indeed Rupert "Fox News" Murdoch (the ultra-extremist-right-wing media baron who PARTNERED with Bill Gates to create the inBloom system that places EVERY CHILD IN THE USA under full surveillance monitoring every aspect of their lives), has just introduced the most draconian ISP level censorship to his 'Sky' internet service.

You know those ultra-extreme Internet filter programs that schools and companies can use to eliminate access to almost every non-mainstream Internet site? Every ISP in the UK must have such filters OPERATING AT THE DNS LEVEL OF THE ISP before the end of 2014. At the moment, the adult bill payer has the 'option' to disable aspects of the filter, although it is notable that even if the user chooses the "18" setting, massive censorship is still active (to get uncensored access, the user must opt to go 'beyond' the '18' setting, and disable the filter in its entirety).

Now before the vile shills step in with their "what is wrong with filters under user control", I will point out the nasty consequences.
1) Britain has had this system on pretty much ALL mobile phone access to the Internet for ages now. To disable SOME of the filtering, the phone owner has to contact his phone company directly, and go through a very nasty tedious process, usually involving lots of direct contact with employees. The ability to simply select the level of censorship via a control page online is purposely NOT provided.

2) The filter system coming (arrived) in the UK immediately implies that functional methods that bypass the filter (VPN, use of proxies, etc) need to be criminalised. The UK will run 'scare' stories in the tabloid press expressing outrage at the ease with which 'children' can use such methods to avoid the filters.

3) The UK filter system defaults to BANNING alternative sources of information, making it clear that decent people ONLY use services like the BBC. Far from targeting 'extreme' material, the filter system targets anything outside the mainstream. The implication is that "the tall poppy needs to have its head removed".

4) The UK filter system is centralised. In other words, a central authority has EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE of the current level of censorship in any online household. Even though the householder is (currently) in charge of the settings, the choices made by the household are government knowledge. This allows the coming tabloid scares about "abusive households deactivate filters even when children there have access to the Internet". Parental rights have only continued because of the absolute impracticality of the State controlling the reasonable behaviour in people's homes/lives. Where the UK State CAN use its power easily, it does. It will become ILLEGAL in a very short time for households with children to have unfiltered connection to the Internet- certainly before a designated watershed time (currently 10PM in the UK). This precedent already exists with access to adult content on cable and satellite (and playback of such material on many more recent DVR systems).

Tony Blair (who is the real power in the UK, just as Putin, regardless of current title, is always the real power in Russia), intends for Britain to set the 'gold standard' for repressive top-down censorship of the net, driven by apparent popular demand by the sheeple. Blair ensures the Labour party (currently out of 'power') votes in parliament to support the most repressive new laws being proposed by his lieutenant, Clegg, and the Conservative/Liberal power bloc that Clegg controls.

Repressive regimes the world over QUOTE actions in UK courts as justification for their own crack-downs against online 'dissidents'. Last year, Blair had a young anti-war activist arrested, for the 'crime' of burning a 'poppy' in an online video, and forced this young man to travel the nation, appearing at pro-war events, declaring his 'repentance' and stating how Blair's wars in nations like Afghanistan and Iraq were wonderful examples of 'justice' in action. Even Stalin would have hesitated in doing something this vile and evil.

Load More 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...