Chinese Human Rights Orgs Hit By DDoS 156
Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "IDG News Service is reporting that several human rights organizations focusing on China have been hit by DDoS attacks this weekend, including Chinese Human Rights Defenders and Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch. The latter works on issues of mental persecution (dissidents being thrown into mental hospitals where they were forced onto medication or beaten with electric batons) and eminent-domain type problems (seizure of farmland or urban land without compensation when the government is working on a project)."
Getting rid of pesky pests (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
And what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture and how the country works overnight? That must end well. Remember that the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese. I don't think the country could manage a huge change.
Unlikely but possible alternative (Score:4, Interesting)
One alternative to consider, as unlikely as it may be, is this: China [already] has a really bad rep among the online communities for openness and free speech. Some third party comes along, having assembled a botnet, and wants to further smear China's name. So they tell their botnet to attack the webpages of those who oppose China's rights abuses. The world assumes it was China and hates them all the more.
Now, before a flood of hate-replies come, let me say a few things. (1) It is less likely than not that the above scenario happened. Anyone wanting to oppose China's rights abuses wouldn't attack those pages. ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.) The perpetrator would have to hate China but not care about the rights abuses. (2) I personally think that China is responsible. This post is just a small attempt to keep people thinking rationally instead of letting their emotions take over completely. (3) We probably will never truly figure out who really did it anyways.
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:4, Interesting)
In order to maintain control, the Chinese government must prevent widespread unrest. In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike. In order to maintain their status in the world, they must keep growing economically. Therefore, the government keeps hording money. Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry. Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.
Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments; or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.
My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
Re:Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some have it better now. There are a billion people living in China, and only a minority have access to the improved standards of living that you are referring to. This is pretty much how things were in the Soviet Union: some people were better off, but most were either in the same position they were in before the revolution or in an even worse position as a result of the government's policies.
Sorry, I know that the Reagan/Thatcher concept is popular, but increased trade does not always bring a higher standard of living to every single citizen or even to a majority of citizens.
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Interesting)
No mods, not informative.
"First World" refers to the US, Western Europe, and allies. "Second World" refers to the Soviets and their allies. China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."
Since the fall of the USSR, the "Second World" doesn't really exist, though the countries that made up the Eastern Bloc, including most of Eastern Europe, could be said to have been in the "Second World."
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:3, Interesting)
The United States has a LOT to loose (and gain) from social unrest in China.
Think for a moment.
Do you believe that social unrest in China will be nonviolent? It won't be. There will be plenty of violence - especially if the lid is kept on too long.
Do you believe that the violence won't effect nearby nations, such as Japan, India, Korea, RUSSIA, etc.? It will. It will be deadly serious for those countries, because we are not talking about social unrest where a few people get a few guns and start shooting at people. China may not have a technologically powerful military, but they have a lot of weapons, in the hands of a lot of people, and they are plenty dangerous (these weapons include nuclear missiles, in case you've forgotten). Neighboring countries will be freaking out, to put it mildly, when the shit hits the fan. And they'll have good reason to do so, since the consequences of, and the conflict itself, will most definitely spill outside the border.
Do you believe that the United States won't get involved with the problem? Without a doubt, the United States will get itself entangled in the problem, to some degree. Even if we are constantly being told to butt out by Russia, our other allies like South Korea and Japan will be screaming for help - and we'll try to do something. We'll pour in aid. We'll fuck around in the U.N. trying to create some sort of international intervention, spending massive amounts of political capital. We'll send in troops, with various contradictory missions and poorly thought out objectives. We might be able to resist for a bit, but we'll go in. And our pundits, of course, will say it's because of the money - because Americans, above else, need clarity of purpose - it doesn't MATTER how complicated the situation is - we must simplify it to a single sentence.
And so, do you think this practically inevitable situation won't affect/hurt the United States? I think that's pretty naive. We offload a huge amount of manufacturing of our goods to China - the type of goods that keep our masses happily consuming and ignoring the what's happening in the world. We might not freak out too bad if gasoline hits $4 - but we certainly will if we can't buy a 30" TV for less than a $1000. And we react pretty badly when we demand something as a majority. We won't just get hurt economically, as prices for things considered basic commodities go up - we'll make it worse by poking ourselves, and others, in the eye.
All that said, I hope it happens. I hope the Chinese people take control of their government, grow their middle class, and build some more freedoms into the core of their political, social and moral beliefs. I'm not positive it'll happen, but I'm pretty sure that there will be some sort of explosion in that country. We'll see.
Divides (Score:3, Interesting)
E.O.Wilson wrote an essay in the late 90's suggesting China is the test case for humanity's attempts to find solutions to environmental and population problems. China as a traditional agrarian male dominated culture has moved from a practise of female infanticide to using technology to abort female foetuses. From this practise a sex ratio imbalance has arisen that some see as of little current or historical importance. The nation's one-child policy could leave 24 million bachelors by the year 2020 [discovery.com]. My own readings in history have taken on views more in line from what has been learnt from the last few decades of research in primatology [wikipedia.org]. Chimpanzee behaviour favouring, figuratively speaking, male oligarchies restricting access to resources maps clearly, in my mind, onto all three, still widely practised, Mediterranean death cult religions promulgating male dominated societies. Based on China's current sex ratio imbalance the questions to be addressed probably can be set in historical, anthropological and primatological contexts.
Personally I suspect China flirted with democracy, but as is nearly always the case, power structures are not given to relinquishing dominion. Recently /. ran a story that the Chinese government replaced the movie "Avatar" with a biography of Confucius [stanford.edu]. The works of Confucius are only known by way of reconstructions, but his core message seems to have been one of a familia philosophy, strongly patriarchal, and, in that light, like the Christian, Islamic and Judaic cults that I find map well onto Chimpanzee behaviour. The core mandate of such power structures is submission and tradition. I suspect the Chinese government, if not the Chinese people, are moving away from democracy and into a tradition bound version of Confucianism, but at best it's only a superficial reading.
The discussion can go on and deeper but one current salient point should be made. Chinese society is observed to be much more family orientated than our western societies. A recent rampage killing in the international press was reported on as having happened in western societies because the killer was deranged, whereas the Chinese feedback suggested the man went on a killing spree because his family wasn't there to support him. Western society is strongly vested in the rights of the individual, China not nearly so much. If the West and China and, perhaps much of Asia, are to achieve an equilibrium than we're going to have to bridge this core cultural divide from both sides.
just my loose change.
Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (Score:3, Interesting)
The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls
You are perpetuating a fallacy. Change does not require war. In fact, the Chinese constitution already guarantees certain rights to speech, press, and assembly. The Chinese could implement democratic reforms by simply upholding their existing constitution. That would mean allowing people to speak out against the government, government officials, or government actions. That would mean allowing political rivals to run for office. That would mean not censoring the press. It does not require revolution or war.
The idea that the Chinese government provides stability is misguided, at best. Authoritarian regimes don't provide stability -- they repress. That repression leads to frustration and without adequate political safety valves that anger boils over into revolution. Authoritarian regimes create revolutions since there is no other way for the citizens to have their concerns addressed. A Chinese government that adhered to its own constitution would be much more stable than the thugs currently in power.