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."
Counterproductive? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they really wanted to censor what went on at Tiananmen Square, they shouldn't draw attention to it by blocking half the internet. Instead they'd just have to spread disinformation within their own country, while still allowing people to read the "outrageous remarks of terrorist conspiracy theorists on the other side of the world". Little attention would be drawn to the issue: it'd get forgotten about. Blocking half the internet in the name of erasing history is DEFINITELY counterproductive to the cause.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
This sort of thing is healthy (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:lesson for those that bash USA (Score:4, Interesting)
When in reality, I think they have little to no appreciation for what we have here.
We're very much imperfect, and I greatly frustrated by some aspects of our culture, but we are very much a free nation. Perhaps sometime people should see what it is to live in nation without civil liberties.
You know what happens when people have anonymity? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Counterproductive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:lesson for those that bash USA (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I feel the need to make some clarifications.
First off, the Constitution can only be altered through a clearly defined Amendment process. It has not been Ammended. Thusly, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid. Any lawyer or judge with any sense of decency shouldn't have trouble upholding basic Constitutional rights.
Secondly, both the office of the President and Congress under many different administrations have failed to uphold the liberties the Constitution is supposed to protect. The failures lie both with the President and Congress. These should be brought to light, but not as a means of partisan politics, but rather as a means of upholding civil liberties.
One such minor example was the Telecommunications Decency Act of (94 or 96?) that clearly trampled on free speech. The then Speaker of the House even publicly said it violated the Constitution, yet the House passed it.
Thirdly, the Constitution could use a good Amendment clarifying our rights to privacy. Currently, they aren't really defined. The Constitution states that we can't be forced to self-incriminate, and that is where unlawful searches and such come from. But there have always been exceptions. For instance, if you have reason to suggest that evidence is time sensitive, or will be destroyed, you can search without a warrant. If you have probable cause, you can search without a warrant. Warrant-less searches have occurred for ages, and should not be made to be appear as a recent or partisan issue. Again, this is an issue that should be more clearly defined in legislation and hasn't been.
Fourthly, the second our security is in question, people panic and demand that the government know everything that is going on, and be omniscient in their ability to defend us. This conflicts with our personal desires to not have the government look over our shoulder. Again, this line should be more clearly defined, but it is not.
Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process. There was a controversial provision about detaining immigrants deemed terrorists basically without due process, but it made several clear provisions against applying to American citizens. If you have clear factual evidence that any government official intends to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges or legal due process, that would be very clear grounds for impeachment.
Post the picture! (Score:5, Interesting)
Flickr is censoring images (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm located in Germany and I can't turn off the Safe Search. Images marked as moderate or restricted
are not visible. If there is something like a Safe Search and moderation of images, fine. But please
leave me (as an adult) the option to view all images.
I guess I won't renew my pro account in August...
Re:So this is how tyranny dies! (Score:4, Interesting)
Mind you, my favourite post 1949 Chinese politician, Zhao Ziyang was criticised for being a yuppie too. It's almost as if the CCP was right to fear "peaceful evolution" and "bourgeous democracy". But the weird thing is that the consensus is that prosperity has made the CCP more secure in the short term, so I guess they're in some kind of trap where either path leads to doom.
I used to think that would happen when Hong Kong went back actually - that if they allowed it to stay relatively free the freedom would spread and destroy them, but if they clamped down the money would leave and then they would be ruined by popular discontent. But HK is a special case like the treaty ports in imperial times. The Emperors managed to keep foreign influences confined to them before and the CCP could do the same. But they can't do that inside China as this story seems to tell you.
Actually, come to think of it the Chinese Emperors didn't quite manage to keep foreign influences confined, since the Empire eventual fell. Unfortunately the evil CCP and KMT ended up replacing it, but with a bit of luck the CCP will be replaced by something more liberal when it goes. I suppose that practically that's up to the Chinese anyway, the best the West could do is to provide resources to nascent political parties that seem to be committed to democracy like it did at the end of the cold war. Anything more direct is likely to lead to WWIII.
But the idea that you can achieve this sort of change by giving Hong Kong and Macau back has a certain twisted appeal to it, given that the CCP was obessed with regaining territory lost to unequal treaties. It would mean that it was good for China to be reunified as they thought, just not necessarily for them personally.
Beware of over reliance on technology (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't want to come across as a paranoid tinfoil hat wearer, but I think that this serves as a warning against the reliance on technology.
Everyone says that the world is a better place, because thanks to technology, we can hear about human rights abuses all of the world. We can connect with other people with similar views. We can voice our opinions to thousands of others.
This is true, to a point. But we need to remember that technology can be easily controlled, as China is clearly demonstrating.
I worry that we become too reliant on technology, and forget the traditional person-to-person networks. And I think that it is the person-to-person networks that will really make the difference. Could another Tienanmen Square be organized by text message? Probably not, the government would have blocked the text messages before they reached too many people. Same goes for email. I'm sure Tienanmen Square was organized by people talking to people, something which is a lot harder to control.
Re:Bashing Corruption, not the USA!!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. As Penn and Teller covered in their show Bullshit, patriotism shouldn't be unflinchingly supporting everything about your nation without question.
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.
Is eminent domain evil and wrong? Likely. Is it Constitutional? Well, maybe. The Constitution said you can't be denied personal property without compensation. In the case of eminent domain, I do believe you are awarded compensation. You should be happy to note however that several states are passing laws to forbid or severely limit eminent domain.
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?
This is exactly my point. Because these issues only seem to be brought up as a form of partisan politics, they get ignored. We file them away with all the usual mud slinging. If the media were perhaps a little bit more objective in politics, we might take a more serious note of accusations such as these, which is my desire to see.
It should also be noted, that when we scream wolf over small matters, we ignore the major transgressions as well. This is partly why I am playing devil's advocate right now.
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.
Please reference another post I made just above you. I'd like to see probable cause, privacy, warrants all these matters more clearly defined by legislation. Probable cause is a very broad term. For instance, alcohol itself doesn't really have an odor, but many alcoholic drinks do. If a police officer claims they may have smelled the odor of alcohol on you, they can use that as probable cause to search your vehicle against your consent without a warrant. And I've seen this stand many-a-time. You can't prove after the fact in court the officer perceived the odor of alcohol, so really if anyone ever wanted to abuse the system, all they had to do was make the claim, and boom, you get a free search of the car!
Probable cause and "unreasonable" searches are unclear. Unclear terms are subject to abuse.
I really didn't ask, much less demand, for them to "know everything". In fact, I didn't even panic when "it" happened, although I was quite sad for a few days.
I'm not simply talking about one incident. In fact, when any incident occurs, there is often public outcry about why it wasn't prevented, and people overreacting who want immediate, sloppy legislature put into measure. The Patriot Act is a great example. Not perfect. Not wholly evil. It is a huge, cumbersome example of overreacting by Congress.
The recent VT shootings are another incident. Everyone
Re:This sort of thing is healthy (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is only personal opinions.
Unfortunately for China right now, the two conditions are not met. The first one is obvious. The second one is a little problematic. There are three segments of population, and I would call them "three generations" to make things simpler.
1) The old generations, those participated in the long march and the cultural revolution, are currently either afraid of changes, or too busy to hold on to their power, and make as much money as they can, while they still can. This is the generation which has the most to lose in case of too much sudden changes. Most of them will not be able to adapt.
2) The second generation, those who were born during the cultural revolution, and that's the generation involved in the 1989 event. But this generation is currently too fragmented to form a noticeable force. Those who are doing well are joining the first generation, they don't want sudden change. Gradual change is good for them, they are making to the elite group. Those who are not doing well (the majority) are too busy making a living, with a family to feed, etc, the ambition for a better world has kinda subsided with age too. And they are sandwiched between two generations that do not want change, more or less.
3) The third generation, those who were born in the 1980s and 1990s, this is the generation of little "emperors" and little "empresses". No big dream, not much ambition, life is good as it is, they will inherit everything from their parents and grand-parents anyway, so why bother? This is what I call the "Life is good" generation.
Changes are coming gradually, but don't expect a sudden movement to tear down the wall or anything. A model for gradual change, or a model for sudden change a la Berlin Wall which ripped through the whole Eastern Europe? Which one is better is debatable for now. What is good for Eastern Europe is necessarily good for China? Again, debatable.
But the gradual change model is so far, so good. So, let's cross the finger, and let's work together toward a better world, as a whole. I am optimistic.
Re:This is a waiting game (Score:4, Interesting)
That said, this happened in 1989. Deng Xiaoping is dead. Deng Xiaoping lived through a time when students tore the country to pieces. They tortured and killed anyone who they disagreed with, and did it on a large scale. Students protesting threw Deng's son out a 4th story window and left him a paraplegic. Students in the 1960's were inhuman and ruthless. Deng had a bad impression of what protesting students will do. What Deng did is inexcusable, but put yourself in his position. If a group of people did that to your son - and also killed and torured your friends - you might not react in a reasonable manner either.
Either way, the leaders behind Tiananmen are dead and gone. The new leaders in China are different. They are fully aware that between the Internet, sms messaging, and cell phones, it is not possible to hide events anymore. The last time I know of police firing on and killing protesters (about 2 years ago in southern China) resulted in all the leaders in that crackdown being removed from duty within a week of the attack (not sure if they got bullets to the head themselves).
Re:So this is how tyranny dies! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think people tend to underestimate just how rapidly China is changing, just because it didn't turn into a western-style capitalist democracy at the flick of a switch when Hong Kong (or Macau) was handed over. A few years ago when my wife went to Beijing the first thing that met her as she left the arrivals gate was a huge poster of Mao; now it's a Kentucky Fried Chicken. On that visit she was issued with tourist food vouchers; now one just draws cash from a cashpoint with an ordinary bank card and spends it in an ordinary shop or cafe. My mother-in-law hadn't seen her sister for over 35 years, even though they lived just a few miles apart, because the borders were closed. The borders opened and they had an emotional reunion a couple of years before the HK handover. Just after the handover, my wife brought back some dried lychee from HK; it turned out that they were from a tree in her aunt's garden in Mainland China, and that these were from the first crop she had ever been allowed to keep: previous years the crop had belonged to the state. We ate them like a sacrament.
Yes, those changes are social and economic, not political, and there is still a lot of change needed, but the pace of change is breathtaking.
Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Geez.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. (Score:2, Interesting)