Feb. 14th, 2006 09:53 pm
china & the intarweb
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
toastykittenMark is sick, so not much going on tonight. Last night's Daily Show was hilarious. That isn't the only news story I've been following, though. I've been keeping track of the China&theInternet stories for the past few weeks, shaking my head, going, "Are you fucking kidding me?" for both the American and Chinese responses. Long list of links below, mostly taken from Slashdot.
This BBC Op-Ed from Bill Thompson claiming that Google's self-censorship in China makes sense. Business sense, that is. And for some reason, everyone else should be behind that because hey, there's censorship everywhere else, why not? I exaggerate, but really, what the FUCK?
Here's the thing that really annoys me about these arguments about the issue of censorship - that the idea that self-censorship is somehow more desirable or less dangerous than regular, state-enforced censorship.
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Cisco invited to Capitol Hill for a meeting on U.S. business practices and censorship in China.
US tech firms that abet China censors face scrutiny
Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, took the rare step of standing up for arch-rival Google today as he argued that state censorship was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China. This quote just about killed me: "Software piracy is a problem that will likely be solved over time, because as Chinese-made technology evolves, the country’s respect for intellectual property rights will improve, he added." - Hey, has he seen the movie industry there lately?
US congressmen have condemned major IT firms including Microsoft and Google for helping China censor the internet.
The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.
Net-savvy outfits are finding ways to let citizens see banned sites - "The company distributes software, called FreeGate, which disguises the sites a person visits. In addition, DIT sends out mass e-mails to Chinese Web surfers for clients such as VOA, which is banned in China. The e-mails include a handful of temporary Web addresses that host off-limits content and springboards to other forbidden sites."
Executives from Google Inc. and other Internet companies head to Capitol Hill next week, where they will become feature players in an awkward debate: Are U.S. companies giving in to China too easily?
"I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question," says Rep. Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing. "It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship."
Ironically, the controversy comes as Google, Yahoo and others are fighting for "Internet freedom" in the U.S. Google is resisting a Justice Department request for information on user searches to help prosecute violations of a federal child-pornography law. Meanwhile, the company has joined competitors to resist plans by telephone and cable companies keen on exerting more control over Internet lines, which has led to concerns about discrimination and content blocking.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights. - Good luck, Smith.
Chinese authorities are determined to stop "harmful information" from spreading through the Internet, but the controls it places on Web sites and Internet service providers in mainland China do not differ much from those employed by the United States and European countries, a senior Chinese official responsible for managing the Internet said today.
Ok, I've had enough of this. I'm going to sleep. Read Glutter for better coverage.
This BBC Op-Ed from Bill Thompson claiming that Google's self-censorship in China makes sense. Business sense, that is. And for some reason, everyone else should be behind that because hey, there's censorship everywhere else, why not? I exaggerate, but really, what the FUCK?
Here's the thing that really annoys me about these arguments about the issue of censorship - that the idea that self-censorship is somehow more desirable or less dangerous than regular, state-enforced censorship.
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Cisco invited to Capitol Hill for a meeting on U.S. business practices and censorship in China.
US tech firms that abet China censors face scrutiny
Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, took the rare step of standing up for arch-rival Google today as he argued that state censorship was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China. This quote just about killed me: "Software piracy is a problem that will likely be solved over time, because as Chinese-made technology evolves, the country’s respect for intellectual property rights will improve, he added." - Hey, has he seen the movie industry there lately?
US congressmen have condemned major IT firms including Microsoft and Google for helping China censor the internet.
The Justice Department asks a judge to approve Patriot Act e-mail monitoring without any evidence of criminal behavior.
Net-savvy outfits are finding ways to let citizens see banned sites - "The company distributes software, called FreeGate, which disguises the sites a person visits. In addition, DIT sends out mass e-mails to Chinese Web surfers for clients such as VOA, which is banned in China. The e-mails include a handful of temporary Web addresses that host off-limits content and springboards to other forbidden sites."
Executives from Google Inc. and other Internet companies head to Capitol Hill next week, where they will become feature players in an awkward debate: Are U.S. companies giving in to China too easily?
"I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question," says Rep. Chris Smith, the New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing. "It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship."
Ironically, the controversy comes as Google, Yahoo and others are fighting for "Internet freedom" in the U.S. Google is resisting a Justice Department request for information on user searches to help prosecute violations of a federal child-pornography law. Meanwhile, the company has joined competitors to resist plans by telephone and cable companies keen on exerting more control over Internet lines, which has led to concerns about discrimination and content blocking.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., is drafting a bill that would force Internet companies including Google, Yahoo and Microsoft to keep vital computer servers out of China and other nations the State Department deems repressive to human rights. - Good luck, Smith.
Chinese authorities are determined to stop "harmful information" from spreading through the Internet, but the controls it places on Web sites and Internet service providers in mainland China do not differ much from those employed by the United States and European countries, a senior Chinese official responsible for managing the Internet said today.
Ok, I've had enough of this. I'm going to sleep. Read Glutter for better coverage.