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!

Top 10 List of Worldwide Internet Censors

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the can't-stop-the-message dept.

Censorship 115

PreacherTom writes "Reports of internet censorship are nothing new and are quite expected from countries whose leadership depends on controlling the popular worldview. Reporters Without Borders, a Paris group that does advocacy work for press freedom, puts a number to the trend with a list of the countries that it says go the furthest to censor the Internet. Photos document the worldwide protests and continuing struggles. Not surprisingly, China is described as the pioneer of internet censors, dedicating more resources than any other country to restrict online freedoms." This week we also discussed the Reporters Without Borders' 13 Enemies of the Internet list.

cancel ×

115 comments

Summary (3, Informative)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820632)

Myanmar, China, Belarus, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, and Uzbekistan.

Re:Summary (3, Funny)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820644)

I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here...give me a few more minutes and I'm sure I can come up with it...

Star wars wisdom (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820660)

If you live in one of these countries, you can either vote to change things, or (if that fails), pretend to let the Wookie win...
As Han Solo said to Lea in the Return of the Jedi, "a backdoor sounds like a great idea"

Re:Star wars wisdom (2, Insightful)

saviorsloth (467974) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820790)

in most of those countries, the wookie *always* wins. people don't really get to vote on much of anything other than feeble local councils, if that

Suspicion (2, Interesting)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821264)

I had this terrible sinking suspicion that the US would make the list. I haven't been this glad to be wrong since the time that my doctor assured me that it wasn't malignant.

Still, it's a great reminder that democracy and free speech are not things that you can take for granted. Given another decade or two of passivity on the part of American voters*, and the USA could wind up taking a place on lists like that. On the other hand, if Americans were to start taking ideas like liberty seriously, they could start using phrases like "Land of the Free" again, without everyone bursting into derisive laughter and then assaulting them with nerf weapons.

* (Am I really the only liberal that was disgusted that Americans actually voted for the Democrats as their progressive party?! Lame. Seriously lame. That party gave America the DMCA, which to this day stifles security research and technological advancement. They destroyed an aspirin factory using cruise missiles to distract people from the fact that th president was LYING UNDER OATH TO THE SUPREME COURT. That should be considered treason for a president. Why can't Americans start voting for a pair of rational parties; Green vs Libertarian would make for a great election, don't you think?)

Re:Suspicion (-1, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821744)

douchebag says what?

Re:Suspicion (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822086)

What?

Re:Suspicion (1)

name*censored* (884880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822388)

douchebag says what?
Sorry Pope, could you repeat that third word in your post?

'nuff said

Re:Suspicion (1)

Verdict (625032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822722)

"Green vs Libertarian would make for a great election, don't you think?)"

Just so long as the libertarian's don't win, sure. Trendy conservatism packaged as progressive, there's two reasons people espouse libertarianism- They want to fully hand over power to the leading corporations of the day or they're emo hipsters in their 30's.

A List of Fallacious assertions you just made (2, Informative)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824442)

Straw Man Argument - You set up the Libertarians as a party defined by love of corporations when they are better defined for a love of small government

Straw Man Argument - You seek to align Libertarian with Emo Hipsters in an attempt to make them look retarded

False Dichotomy - You state that people who espouse libertarianism are either in bed with the corporations of the day or are emo hipsters. The reality of the situation is much more diverse in nature then you let on
Hopefully you will learn that such posts will not make you achieve good karma any sooner and will always be shot down. First think, then post.

Re:A List of Fallacious assertions you just made (1)

aduzik (705453) | more than 7 years ago | (#16827730)

Look, the only thing that really matters is which party would stay the course and which one would cut and run.

Re:Suspicion (1)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16830232)

Hey, don't get me wrong -- I think Libertarians (real Libertarians, that is, not anarchists, neocons, marxists, classical conservatives, liberals, ultraliberals, or any of the other people that call themselves Libertarian and grossly outnumber number actual Libertarians) are idiots who are chasing a fantasy that is only slightly less practical than Communism (Marx's version -- and we all know how realistic that turned out to be).

Still, they're far closer to being genuinely conservative than any party in American politics today. The Republican party has degenerated into something resembling either Fascism or Communism (Stalin's version). Actually, I've heard that the Greens are actually quite conservative, in the classical sense, once you look past their enviromental policies. Still, conservative Americans hate everything about enviromentalism so strongly that they would never even consider the Green party even if the Greens promised to make Christianity the national religion and enforce it by giving the death sentence to heretics.

Besides -- "They want to fully hand over power to the leading corporations of the day" -- isn't that what the GOP is already doing?

"Emo hipsters in their 30's". Don't be ridiculous, emo people don't even vote . The metal studs on those tacky belts they wear get caught on the doors of the polling boths, and they can't get in. And that's assuming that they could stop sitting at home crying and reading Sartre, or cutting themselves to impress chicks.

Re:Suspicion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823174)

Both of your criticisms apply exclusively to Clinton. Can you think of anything bad about the Democrats that doesn't involve a moderate president appeasing a Republican congress?

Re:Suspicion (1)

Liam Slider (908600) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824930)

I had this terrible sinking suspicion that the US would make the list. I haven't been this glad to be wrong since the time that my doctor assured me that it wasn't malignant.
The only reason I was worried about it was due to possible anti-American bias, you know the same kind of crap where you get reports that the U.S. is one of the top producers of torture impliments in the world (never mind that those things are wire cables, rubber hoses, car batteries, things like that...), and not due to any real Free Speech problems. Hell, of all the countries in the world the US is one with the least tendencies towards censorship...well, maybe that will change with the Democrats in charge.
* (Am I really the only liberal that was disgusted that Americans actually voted for the Democrats as their progressive party?! Lame. Seriously lame. That party gave America the DMCA, which to this day stifles security research and technological advancement. They destroyed an aspirin factory using cruise missiles to distract people from the fact that th president was LYING UNDER OATH TO THE SUPREME COURT. That should be considered treason for a president. Why can't Americans start voting for a pair of rational parties; Green vs Libertarian would make for a great election, don't you think?)
Indeed, the Democrats are anything but "progressive", they tend to push censorship, domestic spying, and international interventionism. Plus tend to be anti-business, and anti-technological growth. But I would hardly call the Greens a sane choice as a replacement either, they want to push the US towards the insane end of European-style socialism with 90% income tax rates on the working class (of course, replacing the money stolen with "services"), heavy handed regulation of business, and other BS. The US does need a shakeup in it's political structure, but I'm not sure that looking towards anything currently on the extreme left (for the American political spectrum) is where you'll find the answer.

Greens (1)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 7 years ago | (#16830362)

Really? I'm more familiar with the Canadian Greens, who are actually more of a classical conservative party -- outside of the fact that they place a heavy emphasis on enviromental protection, educational funding, and healthcare. These three issues do push them well into the left, but nevertheless, their other policies are supposedly quite conservative, and have been managing to take up to 10% of the popular vote in some elections. But the American Greens could be a totally different manner of beast, no doubt.

Re:Suspicion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16826056)

Because lying about whether your penis was inside the chubby Jewish intern or not is SO MUCH WORSE than lying about the reasons for a war that has killed thousands of American Soldiers and tens (or hundreds depending on the source) of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Re:Suspicion (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#16829958)

Am I really the only liberal that was disgusted that Americans actually voted for the Democrats as their progressive party?! Lame. Seriously lame.

You misspelled "realistic". See, we live in a two-party system, thanks to Duverger's law [wikipedia.org] . Voting for a third party is more likely to hurt your interests than help them, unless you can convince a plurality to vote with you, and so far the Greens and Libertarians have failed to do that. The alternative is to vote for a major party and work within it to shape it into the party you want.

They destroyed an aspirin factory using cruise missiles to distract people from the fact that th president was LYING UNDER OATH TO THE SUPREME COURT. That should be considered treason for a president.

You mean when he was lying about sex? Personally, I'd say the past six years' worth of lies on far more important subjects are much closer to treason, even though they weren't under oath.

Why can't Americans start voting for a pair of rational parties; Green vs Libertarian would make for a great election, don't you think?

That will basically never happen unless one or both of the major parties implodes, or the Greens and Libertarians launch a massively successful advertising campaign, or we adopt a voting system that allows people to vote their true preferences without accidentally electing the greater evil instead of the lesser one. So far, most people just don't think those parties are superior enough to risk spoiling an election. Don't blame the voters, blame the system first and those parties second.

Re:Summary (5, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820752)

and..Mom

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820810)

You have never seen the Yahoo Groups Detroiters list.

I rate them the #1 North American censored group outside the Big Three television networks. Big Three TV meet Big Three Detroit censorship.

Re:Summary (4, Informative)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820840)

Myanmar, China, Belarus, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, and Uzbekistan.

Technically we have a dupe here, the article [businessweek.com] is actually totally based on the Reporters without borders press release [rsf.org] we discussed [slashdot.org] a few days ago. The list of enemies is also identical with the list of censors:

Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam (Only Burma is called Myanmar.)

Re:Summary (1)

dfenstrate (202098) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821164)

Isn't there significant overlap from that list, and the list of nations seeking to wrest control of the internet from the US Department Of Commerce?

Re:Summary (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821732)

Technically we have a dupe here...

Do you want to know what they [slashdot.org] are?

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821034)

how many nations block /. ?

jus curious

Re:More about Saudi's (1)

Computer Guru (967408) | more than 7 years ago | (#16827032)

http://neosmart.net/blog/archives/239 [neosmart.net]

Saudi Arabia has the most extensive (technologically-speaking) setup of the ones on the list.

Thirteen Countries, not Ten. (2, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820652)

It was 13 not ten.

Myanmar, China, Belarus, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, and Uzbekistan


Did anybody (Editors/Submitter) RTFA? I mean the first line of the article is:

Reporters Without Borders calls out China, Myanmar, Belarus, and 10 other countries for quashing online political and religious expression


Some simple math, 1 = China, 2 = Myanmar, 3 = Belarus . . . and then add another 10 . . . That gives you 13, well at least around here it does.

It's 5 countries ! (1)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820760)

Some simple math, 1 = China, 2 = Myanmar, 3 = Belarus . . . and then add another 10 . . . That gives you 13, well at least around here it does.
Around here exotic numeral systems are very popular... for me, I see only 5 countries.

Re:Thirteen Countries, not Ten. (5, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820780)

It was 13 not ten.

Don't mix your abstractions, the headline says "Top 10," not "Top Ten."

Base 13, dude. Base 13

I must be serious, because nobody makes jokes in base 13.

KFG

What do you get (1)

Jaxoreth (208176) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821252)

if you multiply six by nine?

42.

Re:What do you get (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821268)

I am not, however, averse to making metajokes in base 13.

KFG

Re:What do you get (1)

sankyuu (847178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821720)

But 13 is sixteen.
You mean Base thirteen.

Re:What do you get (2, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821800)

As I orginally typed it it was:

"Base 13, dude. Base thirteen."

But I ultimately decided, in the interest of safety, not to go for the strange loopy metametajoke. They tend to be explosively unstable.

KFG

Re:Thirteen Countries, not Ten. (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821628)

Base 13, dude. Base 13

There is a great disturbance in the force.... as if all over the globe, people are taking off their left shoe, and dropping it with a thunk!

Re:Thirteen Countries, not Ten. (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821850)

. . .dropping it with a thunk!

Just so long as what they thunk was "Don't Panic!"

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go off in a minute and a huff, but how irrelevant got into my pajamas, I'll never know.

KFG

Re:Thirteen Countries, not Ten. (1)

AgNO3 (878843) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820846)

Do to local laws some numbers have not been shown.

Re:Thirteen Countries, not Ten. (2, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821664)

It's more than that, but the other countries they seem to have ignored. And curiously for a French organisation they have omitted France, whom along with Germany, heavily censors anything Nazi. (Thus driving the large and ever growing larger numbers of Nazi Germans more underground, and obscuring their danger).

Another X prize (1)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820656)

From TFA: "In North Korea...Dictator Kim Jong-Il has absolute control of North Korea's media, and grants only a few thousand citizens access to the Internet. When these privileged Net surfers log on, however, they find only around 30 Web sites, which are filled with photos of the leader and praise for the government."

I suggest a multi-thousand dollar prize for the first hacker who can open up their servers so the N.K. citizens can see the whole web.

Re:Another X prize (5, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820686)

Get real. The first order of business for NK-ans should be getting some food and some freedom.

Owning a tunable radio receiver (as opposed to the one with only the DearLeader presets) is a crime in North Korea. Computers/internet access, as nice as that sounds, just isn't an option.

Re:Another X prize (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821288)

What if you accidentally drop a small capacitor in through the ventilation slit?
Is it still illegal then?

I can imagine it now. Instead of smuggling illicit items accross the border, they will start smuggling capacitors.

Re:Another X prize (2, Interesting)

Ilmarin77 (964467) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822994)

If you intend to actually listen to this radio you have much bigger problem - making sure that nobody around you will squeal on you to the authorities.
Most of the citizens of NK actually believe in what their government is doing.

Re:Another X prize (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823434)

What if you accidentally drop a small capacitor in through the ventilation slit? Is it still illegal then?

Probably yes.

Re:Another X prize (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820692)

Oh god, I'd hate to see the results they get when searching for porn.

Re:Another X prize (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820746)

Yes and then Il has everyone who looked at an unapproved website executed.

Re:Another X prize (4, Insightful)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821272)

I suggest a multi-thousand dollar prize for the first hacker who can open up their servers so the N.K. citizens can see the whole web.

I can't say there is much to recommend it. It is likely that there would be no meaningful payoff that would last more than minutes. Even if you were successful in creating temporary access to a wider range of internet sites, it is likely that the few North Koreas who use the web would be too terrified to make use of it, assuming they even knew about it. Given the nature of the regime, you can assume that their secret police record, monitor, review, and act on the traffic in ways that far exceed the most lurid fantasies about the NSA. Surfing unauthorized web sites would likely constitute a punishable act, especially if an unauthorized site was visited that contained unvetted political, economic, or religious [nysun.com] information. If you've stepped over the line in North Korea, you could easily fall prey to the "heredity rule", developed the Dear Leader's father. Under that rule, the North Korean secret police arrest and imprison three generations of a family [signonsandiego.com] for the misdeeds of one of them, often for life, which can be short in a North Korean "prison camp" AKA death camp.

Besides, the international incident with the paranoid, now nuclear armed, barbaric [guardian.co.uk] regime which is starving [timesonline.co.uk] its people wouldn't be worth it.

If anyone still insists on it, I suggest you stay away from at least the Koreas and Japan as North Korea has a long history of kidnapping people from those countries for various reasons. Given their ties to organized crime, due to their many criminal enterprises [heritage.org] , they could reach even further. Life there is tough even when you are useful to them [cbsnews.com] .

China has the most???? (4, Interesting)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820696)

What they don't say is the amount per user. China has the greatest number of internet users, which would take more people to handle the internet censoring. If you only allow 3,000 people to access the internet it is very easy to limit them. When you have 200,000,000 people it take more -- especially when there are many people trying to hack through their blocks.

Re:China has the most???? (3, Insightful)

pedantic bore (740196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821302)

Agreed -- I don't understand the accounting here, either. China at least allows access to a high fraction of the internet, and doesn't make general limits on who can see things. North Korea, on the other hand, is essentially off the net. It goes far beyond censorship -- NK is trying to pretend the whole thing doesn't exist.

South Africa too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820734)

Most ISPs in South Africa are blocking eMule and other P2P ports...

Re:South Africa too... (1)

omegashenron (942375) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821132)

This is because US Telco carriers charge firstly to connect to US networks and secondly for data transmitted in both directions

I recall reading about one African country (I don't think it was South Africa) which had it's internet completly disconnected due to failure to pay access charges

South Africa's reasons (and I suspect some of the other poorer countries on the list) is purly financial.

Re:South Africa too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822878)

Uh wait what? What are you smoking? Those ports are only blocked by crappy wireless services. Telkom does not block that, except they give us shitty data caps. Not because they are poor (hell you should see their revenue growth), because they are greedy assholes.

I would like to say... (1)

sid77 (984944) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820772)

CENSORED COMMENT

Re:I would like to say... (0, Troll)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821228)

In response to your comment, I think the US Government is... *DOING A FANTASTIC JOB!*

I mean, seriously, why the fuck... *HAVEN'T THEY BEEN GIVEN MEDALS YET?*... I was surprised they weren't on the list... *OF SEXIEST POLITICIANS EVER.*

You know what? The government can go suck... *A DELICIOUS LOLLIPOP BECAUSE THEY CERTAINLY DESERVED IT. VOTE INCUMBENT! GOD BLESS AMERICA!*

(Note: This comment is a joke. As much as I hate some of the things America does on the Internet [and off it, but let's not get into that(You just did, asshole)] it's far from these places. For now, at least.)

Re:I would like to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16827934)

LMFAO. Where is The United States?

China #1??? (1)

krotkruton (967718) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820860)

I don't know why anyone would think China is the worst, just listen to the Chinese government [newstarget.com] . They just have trouble accessing the internet sometimes, so you can't blame them for that. I mean, I'm sure they know if they're censoring their own people or not, and why would they lie to us anyway? What could they gain from that??? (was that sarcastic enough? I can never tell...)

Re:China #1??? (1)

samuraiz (1026486) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820942)

When you access a blocked page in China, it just looks like the web site doesn't exist. 404 error.

What's more, we really do have outages that shut off access to large swaths of the foreign internet for a couple of minutes/hours/days.

Sometimes I have to fire up TOR to tell the difference between censorship and a plain old DNS problem or server failure.

No question that the government stooge in question was either a liar or a fool, but it is at least plausible to me that he just didn't know any better. He wouldn't be the only Chinese citizen blissfully unaware that his internet was censored. I've personally enlightened more than a few.

Re:China #1??? (1)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821016)

Technically it would be a server not found error, because 404 (Not Found) would indicate that there was a server on the other end able to send the error message. But I get your point.

Dupes these days, they're getting harder spot! (1)

pasamio (737659) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820898)

FTA:"Reporters Without Borders calls out China, Myanmar, Belarus, and 10 other countries for quashing online political and religious expression" (3 countries, plus 10 others makes 13, not the top ten).

Last line of summary: "This week we also discussed the Reporters Without Borders' 13 Enemies of the Internet list."

The dupes are getting harder and harder to spot! This is just BusinessWeek's spin on it, isn't it interesting how news changes?

Top 10 List of Worldwide Internet Censors (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820936)

Nothing to see here, please move along.

Drat! Foiled again!

Or does this mean Slashdot is on the list?

Behind the Great Wall (5, Informative)

ebonum (830686) | more than 7 years ago | (#16820958)

As an American who has relocated to work in China, I have yet to have problems with the censors. The ping times and transfer rates to and from the US are really slow, but I can get to everything I need. I can read the NYTimes, WSJ, CNN and, most importantly, ./. I can even read this post and all the comments, even the ones that bash the Chinese Government. I don't think it's because the censors are asleep today. For instance, there was a story today in the WSJ today that covered the riots at a hospital in southern China. I'm sure the official news, Xin Hua, forgot to cover the even, but that didn't stop me from reading the story. To say that the government has this firm grip on the Chinese people is nothing more than a clear sign of ignorance. There are far to many people here for the government to even think about trying to keep an eye on everyone or maintaining tight control. Also, the techniques that are highly effective for tracking people in the US don't exist here. This is a cash society. You can go for months or years without leaving any electronic record of your existence. In the US, you can't even drive down the road without your license plate number being picked up or buy breakfast without your debit card indicating that you where Noah's Bagels on University Ave. at 7:07AM and that you bought the Kona Blend. Organizations such as the NSA have deep pockets, tremendous resources, and some very smart people.

        For 99.99% or the people here, we are free to go about our business. As long as you are not advocating the overthrow of the government or engaging in illegal activities you aren't going to have too many problems here. (disclaimer: business where there is a lot of money at stake are another matter) I need not remind you how the laws have been changing in the US for anyone implicated in overthrowing the US government. Try going to websites that advocate the overthrow of the US government and have bomb making instructions. Better yet, set one up inside the US and see how long it is till you get censored. See if the two governments are really all the different. Governments defend themselves. You might not agree with the ways they do it, but they do it nonetheless. And of course the US government has NEVER tried to cover anything bad they they did up...

I'm not implying that I'm a big supporter of the Chinese government. There are a lot of things they need to improve on and change. The list is very long. However, the Chinese government is making massive improvements every year and should be given credit for doing so.

I write this b/c I think there is a tremendous amount of misunderstanding in the US of what it is really like to live in China.

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

zptao (979069) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821012)

Be careful!... the above poster could be a Chinese lackey spreading disinformation!

Re:Behind the Great Wall (5, Informative)

Lorean (756656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821160)

Oh really? I live in Beijing myself. Here are some websites for you to try accessing:
www.wikipedia.org (do a wikipedia search on tiananmen massacre and then see what happend)
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4960762.stm
www.blogspot.com

Oh here's an interesting tidbit of knowledge for you slashdoters. Accessing most Western websites from China is blasted slow. But running bittorrent is just as fast as if I was back home. (For some reason I recently started to be able to stream youtube videos, haven't quite figure that one out)

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

schwieter (836465) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821808)

Add google.com to that list, at least here in Xi'an. It starts to load, but is quickly replaced by a TCP reset error.

It sure is annoying when the website you use most often is blocked. Fortunately, there are proxies, and the searchmash.com site mentioned earlier on /. isn't blocked.

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823366)

You are clearly missing the point. Let me simplify for you:

US=BAD
Everyone Else=Good

Once you learn to accept that, everything will go a lot smoother

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

chrnb (243739) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823830)

Concerning bittorrent: I seems like home connections are blocked for incoming connections, and thus results in very slow upload, but everytime you go a netcafe, the speed is incredible. wonder why

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

Lorean (756656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823908)

Strange, I'm not having that problem. I've uploaded as fast as 60kB/s. Maybe it's ISP specific?

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

kinko (82040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821650)

are you accessing websites written in english or chinese? how many chinese people read english?
(of course, I agree with you - people generally have the worse misconceptions about foreigners)

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

Shag (3737) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821738)

I'm happy that you're enjoying access to the resources you want.

I was in Beijing from October 14-23 at an international (read: U.N.) conference hosted by China at the Beijing International Conference Center, not far from where the Olympics will be in 2 years.

While American press web sites were pretty readily accessible, the BBC rather pointedly was not. (I'm American, but I like some diversity in my news.)

Also, when it came time to upload some coverage of the last day of the conference to a web site in Canada [www.iisd.ca] , I discovered that strangely, I could get from China to all kinds of other places, and could get from all kinds of other places to that site in Canada, but could no longer get from China to that site in Canada directly.

So... I think a flashing red "YMMV" belongs right about here.

On the other hand, the buses and trains were clean, well-utilized and on-time, and the pandas in the zoo were cute, and donkey meat turned out to be tastier than I ever expected.

Re:Behind the Great Wall (1)

D H NG (779318) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825892)

For the most part, sites in the local [opennet.net] language [opennetinitiative.net] are much more likely to be censored than foreign-language sites.

It's protection damn it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820978)

Do not question the fatherland!

Well, this shows what is wrong with voting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16820980)

How exactly did North Korea NOT end up at the top? From the article itself only 3000 people got internet access at all and that is limited to 30 websites. Not 30 websites that are blocked, no, 30 websites is all the web there is in North Korea.

How does this then compare to China wich allows most of its citizens access except to certain sites.

The first is a dictator's wetdream, you, the ruler in total control of all the information. The second is just trying to put out the fire in a vulcano with a spoon.

The very fact that chinese citizens are arrested for accessing information offlimits to them is "good" news. Not for the individual in question offcourse but at least it shows that the chinese citizens as a whole know there is information hidden from them.

Have a show trial for a person accessing an illegal foreign news source and all you will do is advertise to your citizens that this news source exists.

Mom to kid B: Okay I have Kid A a severe spanking for stealing cookies from the kitchen.

Kid B: There are cookies in the kitchen?

Worry less about the countries from wich we here horror stories about repression of information. Worry about those countries we hear nothing from at all.

Re:Well, this shows what is wrong with voting (1)

Lorean (756656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821594)

Can you site sources verifying that Chinese citizens accessing censored information have been arrested in the last 5 years? I understand that you can be arrested for preaching but not just for listening.

They forgot Denmark (5, Interesting)

SlashGeO (237191) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821106)

They forgot Denmark on that list. The danish courts have already started building the great firewall of Denmark. It's sad to see a country priding itself on their freedom of speech, allow private organisations to determine what the danish internet users should see or not see. I'm thinking of the IFPI vs Tele2 case in which the court decided that Tele2 should block access to the AllOfMp3 site. Mark my words... This is the beginning of the end of uncensored internet in Denmark. This is truly sad times.

Re:They forgot Denmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16821342)

I'm thinking of the IFPI vs Tele2 case in which the court decided that Tele2 should block access to the AllOfMp3 site. Mark my words... This is the beginning of the end of uncensored internet in Denmark.

I hope you've got more there than just that case to go on. If not and that is the rate, one site in 30 years, the sun will be a cold cinder before they close up the internet sometime in the year 30,000,002,006.

Re:They forgot Denmark (1)

SlashGeO (237191) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821378)

Well this case opens up for IFPI to dictate which sites to close without going to court. Basically it creates precedence for any private organisation to censor sites they don't like for any reason. Right now this is going to the supreme court but if they find that the verdict was right it will basically force ISP's to create a filter of sites which features material that a private organisation, in this case IFPI, find intrusive on their bussiness (or the business of their clients)

Re:They forgot Denmark (1)

tomjen (839882) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821390)

We already got a filter in place to prevent access to cp. It has been abused in at least on case and it has not been a year yet.

The worst part is that it is trivial to break (certain sites return a fake ip) so it does nothing, but look nice.

Re:They forgot Denmark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16827044)

*sigh*

Take a look here to see what it is about (not censorship, but copyright) http://piratgruppen.org/spip.php?article750 [piratgruppen.org]

list composition (2, Interesting)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821174)

What is our list made of?
6+4+3=13
6 Muslim countries (Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Syria), 4 communist countries (China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam), 3 dicatorships (Myanmar, Belarus, Uzbekistan).
While I am not sure about Uzbekistan, I feel pretty safe about the classification. Countries classified as muslim/communist probably can be tagged as dictatorships too (or as undemocratic to say the least).

So it can be safely said that internet censors are those with ideologies that are/were opposed by the US. We should not be surprised as internet is an american invention and is mostly dominated by english language / western content.

Re:list composition (1)

CapitalT (987101) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821270)

I think it's unfair to put emphasize the word Muslim on your post, mainly because their problem is with porn only.

I'm saying this from Qatar where even sites that insult governments and respected people every hour on the hour are not censored (even though they have been targeting Qatar government for a lot of time lately), but sites like Newgrounds.com are censored because of porn.

DAMN YOU PERVERTS, give us newgrounds back!!

Re:list composition (1)

cucucu (953756) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821386)

I didn't emphasize the word Muslim, other than inadvertently putting it in Uppercase. Some may claim this is a Freudian slip, but probably it was Firefox's spell checker.

While I don't think it is the work of a government to protect me from pornography, TFA speaks about censoring political opposition and bloggers. And yes, censoring governments usually justify their censorship as a way to protect the people from obscene contents, while actually silencing legitimate political discussions.

Re:list composition (3, Interesting)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821602)

But Qatars not on the list, and has always been a step above the other muslim countries in the region as far as freedoms are concerned (even if that might not be saying much).

You might consider it inflamatory that he pointed it out (someone did), but that doesn't make it any less true, and it's certainly (IMO) an interesting point. As a previous poster pointed out, there's a lot of overlap with these countries and those that would like to wrest control of the internet away from the U.S.

One thing that does bother me is that pre-war Iraq probably wouldn't have been on this list, and yet we still have economic and political relations with China, Saudi Arabia, and a lot of other countries that we ought not be dealing with. This goes beyond and political divisiveness; both parties cow-tow to the nations that are precieved to bring us economic gain as if that's more important than human rights.

Re:list composition (2, Funny)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821680)


Although there are elements of truth to what you have to say, the stark manner in which you have presented it will cause the Slashdot mainstream to vilify you and force you to wear a polka dot hat.

Let us hope that the Commander Tacoyev reforms of 2007 are accepted. Then, Slashdot will be as civilized as any other blog and:

- You will no longer be forced to wear polka dot hat.
- I can continue to drink fermented barley water
- Pretty girls riding the bus can ask sit on my lap

Goodbye! Dzienkuje!

Also... (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 7 years ago | (#16821296)

Denmark (believe it or not) - because there is a 'voluntary' system (all ISPs participate anyway) to block access to known pedophile sites, and a court order for ISPs (Tele2 so far) to block access to allofmp3.com because IFPI belives it sells unauthorized copies of music. The matter is currently under appeal to a higher court, which suspends the banning order awaiting the decision. The ISPs intends to take the appeals onwards to higher courts as needed because they believe that the dispute between IFPI and allofmp3.com is a private matter they need to resolve between themselves, and that the blocking order is pure censorship intended to circumvent the international judicial system.

Anyway - if a court, which is representative of the government and its laws, orders censorship, the country would qualify for the list of countries with censorship, right? - I'd say so.

Yeah right up there on my 2-do list (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822102)

With "Provide solid gold Prostitutes to starving people in Africa"

ni6gA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822156)

FreeBSD because Distro is done Here can really ask of she had no fear 4round are in need with process and In ratio of 5 to practical purposes, lead developers Lay down paper

Internet Freedom Test (2, Interesting)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822328)

Want to know if you have freedom of speech on the Internet. Try this simple test. Post a message stating:

<Name of my national leader> is a drooling idiot

If shortly thereafter, we never hear from you again, your nation does not enjoy freedom on the Internet. Judging from posts to Slashdot, the US enjoys truly extraordinary freedom.

Re:Internet Freedom Test (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822390)

Nguyn Minh Trit is a drooling ^NO CARRIER

Re:Internet Freedom Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16824832)

George Bush is a drooling idhyu767jtxcgft

(And yes, I actually brought my keyboard to my head for taht.)

i said this before (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822444)

and I am saying it again.

Government should be delegated a right to censor Internet the same way the censor any public media: television, radio, newspapers by various means.

There is nothing new about and nothing to worry. You have to worry WHO you elect to the government.

Censorship is just a tool. You can use it bad way or good way depending on the person using it.

Same concerns all social institutions.

Grow up.

Re:i said this before (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822744)

Government should be delegated a right to censor Internet the same way the censor any public media: television, radio, newspapers by various means.

There is nothing new about and nothing to worry. You have to worry WHO you elect to the government.

Politicians are voted in and out of office depending on the information the voters possess. If you give politicians unrestricted access to censor the information the voters receive, the democratic process collapses. Voters cannot make informed choices if their communication channels are significantly impaired, either by censorship, or misinformation.

In any case, what advantage does any form of censorship have for the ones being censored? How are people's lives enriched by denying them access to certain types of information?

Re:i said this before (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16823284)

You are talking about the details of censorship. I am talking about the right of censoriship. The fact of how much censorship is there does not necessarily mean that "politician" have unrestricted control or that the population is against or pro censorship. It is a matter of the local customs, of local morality system.

All the lists comparing different aspects "human rights" in different countries are just plain vanilla idiotic imperialistic propaganda machines for one simple reason: peopple of different countries have different notions of "human rights".

Re:i said this before (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824822)

All the lists comparing different aspects "human rights" in different countries are just plain vanilla idiotic imperialistic propaganda machines for one simple reason: peopple of different countries have different notions of "human rights".

Nonsense. Utter rubbish. How do you define a country? It's just a grouping of people and property through a set of constructed constraints. Saying "People of different countries have different notions of 'human rights'" is the same thing as saying, "People have different notions of 'human rights'". This may be true, but using it as a basis to advocate inaction is utter idiocy.

If we have no right to judge China by our own morality, then does China have any right to judge Taiwan? Or Tibet? Or even its own provinces? Or even it's own people? What's the difference between the government of China keeping political prisoners, and criminals holding people hostage in the US? If you're going to make the argument for moral relativism, then you can't just apply it to countries or cultures, as these concepts have no absolute definition. Who's to say a single man isn't a culture to himself? Or a sovereign nation if he declares himself so?

You could, I suppose, make the dubious statement that might means right. The US government can imprison one of its citizens because it has the power to back up its claim. But if you believed that, then you'd have no problem with powerful countries trying to force their notion of human rights on other countries. Or you could argue that the US government has the power to imprison its citizens, because it was democratically elected, and the will of the majority overrules the wishes of the individual; but that can't apply to China, as it's not a democratic system.

So what gives a government like China the right to control its citizens, but prevents an entity like the US from trying to control the Chinese government? What makes China's government so special?

Re:i said this before (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16825812)

Taiwan belongs to China (same people), Tibet - does not (different people). Criterium is very simple: self-identification. North and South Korea are the same country.

It is not moral relativism, because I have my moral and I am living by it, but when there is a whole country with a different moral, I do not interfere. Let the history decide.

". But if you believed that, then you'd have no problem with powerful countries trying to force their notion of human rights on other countries." Do not put your words into my mouth. I said exactly the opposite.

"What makes China's government so special?" The fact that it is "Chinese", it is controlled and responsible to "Chinies", not "Americans".

Listen, either you explain yourself or your post looks very ridiculous.

Re:i said this before (1)

arevos (659374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16827332)

Taiwan belongs to China (same people), Tibet - does not (different people). Criterium is very simple: self-identification.

Just self-identification? That's an unusually generous criteria. By that logic, anyone individual who considered themselves to be independent of their native land could claim to be a sovereign country.

I'm also curious about your non-interventionist policy. You claim Tibet is a separate country, yet it is controlled by China. Should we interfere and liberate Tibet? And if not, does that mean that the world should be run on a "survival of the fittest" basis, with stronger countries swallowing weaker countries?

And incidentally, if Taiwan had a referendum and voted for independence, would you consider them a sovereign country, even if the PRC said it was still their territory?

It is not moral relativism, because I have my moral and I am living by it, but when there is a whole country with a different moral, I do not interfere.

What population does the country have to have? A million? A thousand? A dozen? One? If an armed gang took control of a small US town, and announced that it was now a sovereign state, would you advocate that the US government leave the town alone? What if the majority of the citizens supported the move to independence? Would you support it then? Where exactly do you draw the line?

". But if you believed that, then you'd have no problem with powerful countries trying to force their notion of human rights on other countries." Do not put your words into my mouth. I said exactly the opposite.

Read what I said again. I said if you believed that. In other words, I was saying that you don't believe might makes right, because if you did, you'd believe it was right to force China to change its human rights record.

"What makes China's government so special?" The fact that it is "Chinese", it is controlled and responsible to "Chinies", not "Americans".

Responsible to? In what way? It's a totalitarian government, not a democracy; the Chinese population don't have a say in the matter. And again, the issue of Tibet crops up. You've already said it's a separate country; why should the Chinese government control it? And if it shouldn't, should countries like the US help? What if the US developed a hypothetical superweapon, allowing them to take back Tibet bloodlessly - would it be morally justified in your view to liberate Tibet then?

Re:i said this before (0)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16827534)

Individual is not enought. It has to be self-sustainable self-reproducing enthic minority (homosexuals do not qualify, software engineers do not qualify).

"Should we interfere and liberate Tibet? " No. YOU, personally, as American, exhausted your interference quota up to 1000 years ahead.

"would you consider them a sovereign country". Sure.

"What population does the country have to have? A million? " It is not defined by population size. It is defined by willingness of people to die for the independence. For example, Chechens deserve their independence, while Tibetians probably do not.

"If an armed gang took control of a small US town, and announced that it was now a sovereign state, would you advocate that the US government leave the town alone?" No. Armed gang is not self-sustainable and it is not self-reproducible.

"In what way? " In a very simple way: if it will become real pain in the neck, Chinese people will overthrow it. The Chinese revolts happened in the past, do not worry. They know what they are doing. Talk to your Chinese co-workers. Americans unfortunately do not have the quality. Current government is real pain in the neck but nobody is going to overthrow it. There is not a single lazybone senator soul proposing an impeachment of this hunta of degenerates.

"why should the Chinese government control it?" Because they are already controlling it.

Re:i said this before (2, Interesting)

arevos (659374) | more than 7 years ago | (#16828628)

Individual is not enought. It has to be self-sustainable self-reproducing enthic minority.

Why? Also, what about countries that were founded from a mix of ethnicities, such as the US? And what about countries that would collapse if not for the food aid they get, such as North Korea?

"Should we interfere and liberate Tibet? " No. YOU, personally, as American, exhausted your interference quota up to 1000 years ahead.

What makes you think I am an American?

"What population does the country have to have? A million? " It is not defined by population size. It is defined by willingness of people to die for the independence. For example, Chechens deserve their independence, while Tibetians probably do not.

I see. An interesting take from someone who has personally risked their life to guarantee the independence of their country. You have personally risked your own life, haven't you? It seems a little easy for someone to say that they'd die for their independence, if they haven't lived in a totalitarian regime.

Out of interest, you say that a country is not defined by population size, but you've also said that a country's population has to be greater than one. Would a sexually active man and woman, willing to die for their independence, and part of a ethnic minority (whatever that is) be considered a country in your eyes?

"If an armed gang took control of a small US town, and announced that it was now a sovereign state, would you advocate that the US government leave the town alone?" No. Armed gang is not self-sustainable and it is not self-reproducible.

The armed gang would just be the totalitarian government; the population would be the captured town, and it seems reasonable to assume that a town of people could be self-sustainable and self-reproducible.

"In what way? " In a very simple way: if it will become real pain in the neck, Chinese people will overthrow it. The Chinese revolts happened in the past, do not worry. They know what they are doing. Talk to your Chinese co-workers. Americans unfortunately do not have the quality.

The US has been considerably more successful in their revolts than the Chinese. The last American revolt gave them a free democratic government, a constitution that was rather ahead of its time in terms of rights, an economy and military that eventually succeeded all others in the world, and a nation that has so far lasted over two centuries.

The last Chinese revolt on the other hand (if you can call the Chinese Civil War that), resulted in a communist dictatorship that resulted in corruption and hyperinflation that for a good 40 years languished in poverty. Compare China's economic growth to Japan's in the same period, and you'll see the huge gulf between the two economies. Only within the past 15 years, with China opening up its markets to private business, has its economy begun to grow at a significant rate.

So I'm not sure how you rate the quality of Chinese revolts as being greater than American ones. Now, if you were talking quantity...

Current government is real pain in the neck but nobody is going to overthrow it. There is not a single lazybone senator soul proposing an impeachment of this hunta of degenerates.

The current US administration, bad as it is, has a long way to fall before it gets as bad as China.

why should the Chinese government control it?" Because they are already controlling it.

Uh... That's a reason?

"Gee, shouldn't we stop that bear gnawing Paul's face off like that?"
"Nah, it's already doing it."

"Hey officer! Shouldn't you stop that man gunning down those children?"
"Why? He's already doing it.

Re:i said this before (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16823220)

Goverments should not have a right to cenhsor ANY media, period. Free speech should mean exactly that, not just as long as you do not offend someone!

-

North Korea?? (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822706)

It's my understanding the North Korea does not maintain ANY Internet connectivity. So they should either be #1 on the list or not included at all (since they're not even in the game).

All your internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16822772)

All your internet are belong to us.

Privatized Censorship? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16822954)

Is it censorship if the Internet content/connection suppression is performed not by the government, but by a cartel of corporations [eff.org] that control the nation's traffic on their backbones?

China is the LEAST censored (1)

illegalcortex (1007791) | more than 7 years ago | (#16824214)

...if you measure it per capita!

Related Story (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 7 years ago | (#16828588)


"Some 17,000 attendees of the protest voted for the nation they believed is most in need of greater Internet freedom, and China came in second, with 4,100 votes. Myanmar, under the militaristic regime of the Junta party, was believed by 4,500 participants to present its citizens with the greatest threat to freedom of press on the Internet. The remaining nations, in descending order of votes received, were Belarus, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, and Uzbekistan. "

In a related story representatives from China, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have petitioned the ITU and the UN to force the US to give up control of the internet root domain servers. The EU has for some unknown reason sided with these oppressive governments.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/11/soa/unint ernet.htm [thenewatlantis.com]
http://bildt.blogspot.com/2005/10/european-union-i ran-saudi-arabia-cuba.html [blogspot.com]

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...