Users Rage Against China's 'Great Firewall' 277
slugo writes with a CNN article about young professionals increasingly aware of the small part of the internet they're allowed to play in. Intelligent and internet-savvy, these users are frustrated by China's overactive concern for internet health. "Yang Zhou is no cyberdissident, but recent curbs on his Web surfing habits by China's censors have him fomenting discontent ... Yang's fury erupted a few days ago when he found he could not browse his friend's holiday snaps on Flickr.com, due to access restrictions by censors after images of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre were posted on the photo-sharing Web site. "Once you've complained all you can to your friends, what more can you do? What else is there but anger and disillusionment?" Yang said after venting his anger with friends at a hot-pot restaurant in Beijing. The blocking of Flickr is the latest casualty of China's ongoing battle to control its sprawling Internet. Wikipedia and a raft of other popular Web sites, discussion boards and blogs have already fallen victim to the country's censors."
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
lesson for those that bash USA (Score:2, Insightful)
So please stop crying wolf about the US, and I say this as someone that has voted Libertarian in the last three elections and is not thrilled with all the actions of this government.
Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Chinese Government is Communist. All "Chinamen" are not.
Furthermore, Communism does not have to equate directly to censorship.
Re:lesson for those that bash USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Impossible (Score:3, Insightful)
There are plenty of people who bypass the firewall already. China is marching into the 21st century with an eye to the future. They are building schools and focusing on emerging technologies. They are growing not only in population, but in knowledge and economy.
I don't think it is unreasonable to assume a strong possibility exists where they are the lone true superpower in the future.
However, you can not get to that point with discontent citizens, or backwards technological practices.
If you want people to love their country, then you can't pretend the past never happened.
The moment a strong Chinese political leader steps forward, admits to all the past mistakes made by former Chinese leaders, and motivates their population under the banner of a new, free China, watch the fuck out.
cough cough , spit (Score:2, Insightful)
they don't report disease outbreaks... SARS, pig blue ear, bird flu
that ensure disaster.
the world ends with a cough and cyanosis
tyranny sucks wind
Re:You know what happens when people have anonymit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Use a proxy (Score:3, Insightful)
One Option - Learn English (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:lesson for those that bash USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us would rather never get there in the first place ;)
When you see the President daily working to concentrate more and more power into his office at his personal control, when you see an eight-hundred-year-old institution like habeas corpus thrown down and spit upon, when you see our constitutional protection against unreasonable searches thrown out because getting a warrant is just too darned inconvenient, when Congress feels the need to pass a law clarifying the fact that the United States should not torture people (and the President attaches a signing statement saying he'll disregard that if he feels like it), when you see the White House arguing that it should have the power to detain any American citizen indefinitely, without charges or legal due process...
Well, when you see all that you start wondering how much further we really have to go. And you want to stand up and fight it while you still can.
This is a waiting game (Score:5, Insightful)
Eighteen years later, families of those that were directly affected by that dark day are given increased surveillance by China's version of the Secret Police; some are even put under a house arrest that's unlawful even by their own standards. Anyone that speaks out even remotely against the government is either put under surveillance, house arrest, or just arrested, sometimes never to be seen again. It's gotten to the point where younger people in China don't even KNOW what happened, or even that June 4 1989 was a significant day in Chinese history; remember, a person working for a newspaper was fired for letting through an obscurely worded advertisement mentioning the Mothers of 64 (64 = June 4), and she'd never even HEARD of the Tienanmen Square massacre; those that try to find it on search engines are either blocked/reported, or given China's "official" (read: lies) opinion on the days' events (essentially, that it was a public uprising that needed to be quelled). The common man in China lives in poverty, intentionally kept down by a government that uses them to further their own personal ambitions, with one or two token executions per year of "corrupt" officials. Essentially, China has become the modern day equivalent of Orwell's astute observations.
If China can effectively whitewash one of the most brutal subjugations of all time, and essentially wipe it from history, what the hell do you think it's thinking of what the article states? They're not worried one iota over what public perception is of how they handle Flickr, or any other website that doesn't play by China's rules. The people don't know any better; they just know that "oh, this can't be reached now
Eventually, peoples' opinions will dull on this matter, because time fades all memories. This will not affect China in one way whatsoever. Everyone from around the world can decry their censorship all they want, but they're always going to be outsiders; China will never let them "pollute" their pool, so to speak. And when the Great Firewall of China filters out anything unpleasing, what will the people know of what the world feels about their country, and their leadership? Eventually, mention of what REALLY happened at Tienanmen will be regarded by the majority of the Chinese populace the way we in America regard anyone that feels the JFK killing was a massive CIA conspiracy; it will be regarded as a massive conspiracy theory to do nothing but get attention and revel against the Man, and the person saying it will be effectively ostracized by his peers, and be put under watch by the government (something that's unlike us here in the US).
Sounds Like US Military Rules for Soldiers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This sort of thing is healthy (Score:5, Insightful)
And in Gorbachev's memoirs he quoted Zhao Ziyang as saying that there should be free elections for the head of the Chinese Communist Party in the short term, and a multiparty system in the long term. Given that he was General Secretary at the time, that's breathtaking. But if you look at Chinese history, lots of people have tried to introduce democracy and most of them ended up either imprisoned, or under house arrest or executed. Incidentally most reactionary movements in China have been strongly nationalist too and it is possible that they will lash out at America, Japan or Taiwan to distract the Chinese people's attention away from their loss of freedom.
So I'd say that it is likely that China will democratise, and there are certainly signs that it is happening. But it's also likely that reactionary politicians will attempt to roll back the process and it's in everyone's interests that the US tries to stop them.
Free societies shouldn't fall for the telelogical fallacy that history has a direction, or be so arrogant as to assume that all societies will end up being like them automagically. Lots of non free societies would still exist if they had been able to isolate themselves from the outside world and achieve a measure of self sufficiency, and China is big enough to do just that.
Re:Use a proxy (Score:1, Insightful)
What a country!
Internet restrictions are only a symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
The real victims are the oppressed poor and working classes -- they aren't particularly concerned with trivialities like Flickr access, having to submit to what is essentially slave labor [google.com] due to extreme poverty.
The problem with China is the government and its political philosophy, not the predictable restrictions on information access that totalitarian governments always enact.
Re:lesson for those that bash USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So this is how tyranny dies! (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, I'm not saying this represents the beginnings of some sort of middle-class uprising against the evil Party! Tensions are tensions, and change is change: who knows where this sort of thing will lead? To greater freedom; greater repression; or something that doesn't fit neatly into either of those paradigms. But I do believe stories like this one are significant.
Re:Sounds Like US Military Rules for Soldiers (Score:1, Insightful)
The U.S. Military are free to censor whatever they want on their own networks, and as far as I know, members of the military have previously signed a contract giving up some rights US civilians take for granted. for example, military members are not allowed to form unions, can be expected to work 24/7, and acknowledge they may DIE in performance of their assigned duties. When was the last time you and your coworkers where ordered by your boss to take and hold a rival companies cube farm?
BIG FRIGGIN' DIFFERENCE between banning military members from viewing clips of family guy and suppressing an entire populations' ability to get alternate viewpoints on world affairs.
Those who modded you "insightful" should be ashamed of themselves for giving into the urge to "join the herd" and not put your comment into the proper context.
Re:lesson for those that bash USA (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I'm beginning to see where the problem might be.... 8^)
The latter is not possible. Politics is partisan, by its very nature. The moment you oppose a policy, a statute or a platform, you find yourself on the outside looking in. Once entrenched, vested interests are not interested in being divested of them simply because someone else has a better idea. It's so much easier to throw mud than to actually address matters of substance that the political battle quickly descends into a shin-kicking, name-calling contest, rather than a sober discussion of the merits of a particular idea.
Politics is ugly, stupid, dishonest and ultimately boring. Partisanship is a fundamental element of the only means by which large numbers of people can be moved to act, let alone care. We don't have to like it, and we don't have to stop striving for better manifestations of popular government, but we would be blind to discard anyone's political message simply because it's partisan.
Of course it's partisan! But is it any good?
Bashing Corruption, not the USA!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think therein lies the problem. Many judges are turning a blind eye; and those judges that tend to pursue it do seem to have a problem upholding those rights. Here is a fine example of what I am trying to describe: the recent(!) Supreme Court decision to allow arbitrary seizure of property by private entities, a right once entitled to governments alone for the sole purpose of improvements for the public good. Clearly, someone was NOT thinking when they allowed this one through.
Agreed about the "failure to uphold".... But given that this kind of activity goes back decades and decades, and the American voter base seems included to do...well...nothing about it, it is for all effective purposes, worthless, as the public refuses to enforce it. Why does the public turn such a blind eye to something easily fixed? Why are they content to continue on? I highly doubt it's some form of partisan politics, as this has occurred on the watch of BOTH parties - maybe it has something to do with the stench of corruption and money?
Yes, the 5th Amendment allows for non-self-incrimination, but I think you're entirely missing a little gem that is relevant to your discussion...Hm, time to haul out a copy of the US Constitution....lessee here...(adjusts glasses for reading) ah yes...
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Emphasis is mine.
So this whole "warrantless" concept is without...warrant? I guess you could really stretch the part about "unreasonable searches and seizures" in an attempt to justify it but the next part is pretty clear to me, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." Really, pretty plain English as far as I can tell. So, this warrantless search and seizure bit - just how far back are we talking about? I would like to hear your information on this, as it seems there is a bit of a conflict as to "what source is correct". I'm not so much trying to argue as I am trying to point out another example of "bending the rules" again.
A small correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Still, he has a point there - the Chinese censorship is becoming too restrictive and hinders too many things, and there is a risk that it becomes a serious hindrance to their progress, economically and otherwise, so I think they will have to reform their policy somewhat. But then that is exactly what they are doing - from what you hear, although it is mostly interpreted negatively in the West, they are trying to find the right balance. And as is the case in all governments, there are groups with different viewpoints; some want much a more restrictive censorship, others want to open up; my bet is on the ones that want more openness. It makes much more sense in the long run, and the Chinese aren't idiots.
I've seen the usual comments already here along the lines of 'China is a totalitarian, communist hell-hole', and 'Yang Zhou is going to disappear', which tells more about the people that make the comments than about the reality of life in China. In China, as in most other civilized countries, people don't 'disappear' for criticising a bad policy; thye can, however, get arrested for being a threat to society, as interpreted by those in power - this is no different from America or Europe, the difference lying more in what is considered a threat to society. And again, one may not agree with what China calls a threat to society, but they are a sovereign nation, and it is their right to make up their own minds about this - we in the West have one or two absurdly draconian security related laws too, don't we? In time it will change.
Help spur the Chinese Revolution! (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course posted as an Anonymous Coward. I could really do without disappearing.
Re:You know what happens when people have anonymit (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know what happens when people have anonymit (Score:3, Insightful)
Minor correction. Most people watch American Idol, while some *other* people watch PBS. However, most people will surf porn, but this is *not* a distinct group than people visiting 'cultured' websites. Few people watch both American Idol and PBS; lots of people watch both porn and 'cultured' websites (albeit not at the same time, usually).
In other words, seeing lots of people visiting porn websites doesn't mean much about the overall level of the websites they visit. Whereas knowing that most (US) people watch American Idol says something quite sad.
Re:Internet restrictions are only a symptom (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately China, like almost all countries, try to drill into their residents the sanctity of human life so the general populace aren't willing to sacrifice their lives for a better future.