"Cybercriminals target non-conventional appliances" (ZDnet.co.uk, 09 April 2010). not surprising, and among the devices: mobiles phones, USB flash drives and peripherals.
and DDOS attacks linked with extortion/blackmail notices, "Chinese DDoS attacks hit News Limited" (ZDnet.co.uk, 14 April 2010)
Showing posts with label Countries - China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Countries - China. Show all posts
Friday, 7 May 2010
Friday, 23 April 2010
Google and China
Rob Hanlon and Stephen Frost, CSR Asia, on 31 Mar 2010, criticised Google's HR motives to withdraw from Mainland China. The core of their arguments is nothing new: Google was not making any profit, to stay would have been counterproductive to their business model; to withdraw in the name of HR is not helpful to China's HR activists and it is an illusion to believe a foreign company can influence China's policies on whether to censor or not.
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Google-Theatre-CSR-Asia-31-Mar-2010.pdf
Well, at the end of the reading, frankly, I am less than convinced by their arguments. I have no doubt that Google withdrew because it was not making enough money, but I do not think it is the only motive. I completely disagree with their stand about people/companies not being able to influence others including foreign governments. This is saying that nobody is responsible for whatever happens and history defies such argument. As we are talking about HR, let us think about Nelson Mandela. He was the catalyst of a whole movement who changed the course of history. Gandhi did the same against the then British Empire which power we forget the might.
Google's answer to the criticism is poorly drafted I think. The HRW's response is much more interesting as it points towards the weakness of Hanlon and Frost's arguments.
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Google-response-re-CSR-Asia-19-Apr-2010.doc
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Human-Rights-Watch-reply-re-CSR-Asia-on-Google-20-Apr-2010.doc
All the reports are on the Business and HR website at http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000252
For the earlier report on Google closing its site: Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship (NY Times 22 March 2010) and different comments on the Business and HR website: http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000132
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Google-Theatre-CSR-Asia-31-Mar-2010.pdf
Well, at the end of the reading, frankly, I am less than convinced by their arguments. I have no doubt that Google withdrew because it was not making enough money, but I do not think it is the only motive. I completely disagree with their stand about people/companies not being able to influence others including foreign governments. This is saying that nobody is responsible for whatever happens and history defies such argument. As we are talking about HR, let us think about Nelson Mandela. He was the catalyst of a whole movement who changed the course of history. Gandhi did the same against the then British Empire which power we forget the might.
Google's answer to the criticism is poorly drafted I think. The HRW's response is much more interesting as it points towards the weakness of Hanlon and Frost's arguments.
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Google-response-re-CSR-Asia-19-Apr-2010.doc
http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Human-Rights-Watch-reply-re-CSR-Asia-on-Google-20-Apr-2010.doc
All the reports are on the Business and HR website at http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000252
For the earlier report on Google closing its site: Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship (NY Times 22 March 2010) and different comments on the Business and HR website: http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1000132
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Google, China, HK
"Google Approach In China: Redirect To Hong Kong", TechDirt, 22 March 2010
with the original post from Google also from 22 March 2010.
What I was intringued by in Google's statement was the following sentence: "We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. " I wonder what Google meant by "legal": legal to uncensor in China? or legal to redirect links?
I also noticed that after the English version of the post, other links to the same content are posted in different languages. Quite interesting to see how Google is catering for his non-anglophone users
"If ACTA Gets Approved, Expect China To Use It As Justification For Censorship", TechDirt, 22 March 2010
with the original post from Google also from 22 March 2010.
What I was intringued by in Google's statement was the following sentence: "We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. " I wonder what Google meant by "legal": legal to uncensor in China? or legal to redirect links?
I also noticed that after the English version of the post, other links to the same content are posted in different languages. Quite interesting to see how Google is catering for his non-anglophone users
"If ACTA Gets Approved, Expect China To Use It As Justification For Censorship", TechDirt, 22 March 2010
Copyrights: our level of acceptance in surveillance and prosecution techniques
Self-explanatory and completely in line to my point of view about the level and type of surveillance we accept online being disproportionate to what we would tolerate offline; it is like the spirit of the Enlightenment being swallowed by the new technologies.
"Would UK Politicians Support The Digital Economy Bill If It Applied To Offline Activities As Well?" TechDirt, 19 March 2010
It is especially worrying when one sees those types of headlines and attitudes:
"More ACTA Leaks: Would Create Special Organization To Manage Worldwide Copyright Laws", TechDirt, 19 March 2010
"EU Proposes Criminalizing Inducing Infringement In ACTA Draft; Could Outlaw Google", TechDirt, 18 March 2010 - it is the EU commission, not the Parliament; and it continues the general trend in EU Law of wanting to edict criminal sanctions whereas criminal law is not supposed to be a competence for the EU institutions
"If ACTA Gets Approved, Expect China To Use It As Justification For Censorship" - TechDirt, 19 March 2010 - well China will indeed always use whatever possible to reinforce surveillance
Monday, 15 March 2010
Google, China and Co: where do we draw the line between the acceptable and the not-so-acceptable?
A long silence, partly because I was busy scrolling down the shelves at Cambridge (UK) library for books before my fellowship at CRASSH ended. I still have a few books to read, but today I am trying to go through the amassed cuts of newspapers' articles.
So let us review the story about Google rethinking its policy in China. Much ink has been spilled over the issue.
First, Google made its annoucement on 13 January 2010, a date that feels a bit like a new year/new resolution statement. The annoucement was not to censor anymore its search results on Google China, whether or not requested by Chinese authorities. The consequences, i.e. the possible end of any business presence in China, were recognised as a possibility. What seems to have triggered the decision was a series of cyberattacks against Chinese human rights activists. (Guardian, 13 January 2010, front page and page 3).
"Google to end censorship in China over cyber attacks" (Tania Branigan, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
"Google counts cost of censorship and draws red line under China" (Bobbie Johnson, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
On the details of the attacks, see Guardian 14 January 2010 and 15 January 2010.
"Google acted on censorship amid China dissident fears" (TheGuardian, printed version 14 January 2010, front page)
"Google's move on Chinese censorship welcomed by human rights activists"
(TheGuardian, 14 January 2010, page 14)
"Accounts invaded, computers infected – human rights activists tell of cyber attacks", The Guardian, printed version 15 January 2010
The attacks bring into light how internet communications are central to governmental response to politics, including war. "Cyber-warfare 'is growing threat'" The Guardian, 4 February 2010, page 7; similarly, six months ago, "MyDoom virus hits key networks in US and South Korea" The Guardian, 9 July 2009, page 16 (the title in the printed version is slightly different: "Cyber attacks paralyse government computers in US and South Korea"). But for a different vision on a 'supposed' cyberwar: "White House Cyber Security Guy: There Is No Cyberwar", TechDirt, 9 March 2010
However, the cynics add that Google never made the money it expected to make; it has only one third of the search engines market in China which is dominated by Baidu= Governmental Chinese version of search engine. So its decision may not rest so much on willingness to defend democratic values through guaranteeing freedom of expression, than on profit-making interests.
In addition, Google's decision in 2006 to censor results hurt the company's reputation, so much that one of its founder, Sergey Brin, called it a "net negative" (see Guardian's article, 13 January 2010, page 3; and page 14, 14 January 2010).
Nevertheless, cynicism may not be so much on the agenda. Let us face it: Google is not the new knight defending freedom of expression without awaiting something in return. On the other hand, personal history certainly plays a role here. Sergey Brin emigrated to the US in 1979, aged six, with his parents who were victims of anti-semitism, even under the then-USSR. (Guardian's, Tania Branigan, 14 January 2010, front page).
China's reaction was at the beginning cautious... and heavily censored as few headlines made it on the newspapers/online versions in China itself. Some commentators, pro-governmental line, did not see Google's decision as 1) affecting China much (there are other search engines), 2) as a desinterested decision (aka, Google does not make enough profit to stay).
What seems to emerge on the side, with other companies finding it difficult to enter the Chinese market, is a picture of full protection of Chinese interests (economic or not) against foreign companies and Governments. It fits with a presentation I attended in September 2009 at the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) in Keele, where the speaker demonstrated that Chinese law favoured chinese contract law in all dispute resolutions, a concept that systematically discards foreign law; in other words, private international law in China is resolved by the quasi-systemic application of local law to the exclusion of foreign law. An article on the International Herald Tribune of 14 January 2010 page 15 is quite revealing on those behaviours. The article even ends up by saying, in more polite form, that foreign companies sell their soul to China, accepting to give for free, for fear of loosing a market share, what they would never have tolerated in other countries. I know the story is not exagerated. In his second volume on Globalisation, which focuses on Water, Eric Orsenna (French Academician and writer) explains that the French company Alstom more or less gave the plans of its water turbines for the three Dams on the yellow river, in exchange for obtaining the market... Except that the turbine plan is now copied and Alstrom not needed...
"China stifles news of Google’s defiance", The International Herald Tribune, 14 January 2010 (p. 1)
"Google Is Not Alone in Discontent, But Its Threat Stands Out", The New York TImes, 14 January 2010 (by the way, this habit of the NYT and IHT not to use the same title in the printed and online version is frankly annoying).
Eric Orsenna, L'avenir de l'eau : Petit précis de mondialisation II (Broché), Fayard 2008 (The future of water: little manual on globalisation II - NB: the first volume was on coton and is as interesting as the second, if anybody can read French - by the way, it is not a complicated French although it is beautifully written).
If we take into account China's policy in conducting business, then it appears very clearly that accepting to censor the results could only amount to failure in terms of believing that the economy will allow for freedom of expression to grow. The economy is in itself a close circuit; nothing from the outside will penetrate it, especially NOT freedom of expression. After 30 years of economic "liberalisation", the West should start looking at the full picture, rather than avoiding the issue: China will not become a democracy by free market. See James Kynge, "Full circle", Financial Times 16/17 January 2010.
"China and the west: Full circle", Financial TImes, 15 January 2010 (printed version, 16/17 january 2010 (like for the Guardian, can't they just give one date???)
Viewed under that light, Bill Gates' comment is not as irresponsible as it may first appear. It is a realist comment: that anyone doing business in China has to accept the fact that democracy is out of question. Then the question is: does one have the guts, to take a familiar expression, not to do business? The West's answer so far is certainly not living to its Enlightenment's ideals.
"Playing the wall game in China" The Guardian, 18 January 2010
Additionally see:
"Google may lose business, but gains good will", Miguel Helft, International Herald Tribune, printed version January 16/17, 2010 (can't find the link online)
"Why fearful china stamps out dissent", Peter Beaumont, The Observer, 17 January 2010, p. 22 (can't find the link online either)
Will Google stand up to France and Italy, too? The Guardian, 14 January 2010
"China Issues Another Warning to Google on Enforced Censorship of the Internet" link to NY Times by Business and HR website, 12 March 2010
So let us review the story about Google rethinking its policy in China. Much ink has been spilled over the issue.
First, Google made its annoucement on 13 January 2010, a date that feels a bit like a new year/new resolution statement. The annoucement was not to censor anymore its search results on Google China, whether or not requested by Chinese authorities. The consequences, i.e. the possible end of any business presence in China, were recognised as a possibility. What seems to have triggered the decision was a series of cyberattacks against Chinese human rights activists. (Guardian, 13 January 2010, front page and page 3).
"Google to end censorship in China over cyber attacks" (Tania Branigan, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
"Google counts cost of censorship and draws red line under China" (Bobbie Johnson, TheGuardian, 13 January 2010)
On the details of the attacks, see Guardian 14 January 2010 and 15 January 2010.
"Google acted on censorship amid China dissident fears" (TheGuardian, printed version 14 January 2010, front page)
"Google's move on Chinese censorship welcomed by human rights activists"
(TheGuardian, 14 January 2010, page 14)
"Accounts invaded, computers infected – human rights activists tell of cyber attacks", The Guardian, printed version 15 January 2010
The attacks bring into light how internet communications are central to governmental response to politics, including war. "Cyber-warfare 'is growing threat'" The Guardian, 4 February 2010, page 7; similarly, six months ago, "MyDoom virus hits key networks in US and South Korea" The Guardian, 9 July 2009, page 16 (the title in the printed version is slightly different: "Cyber attacks paralyse government computers in US and South Korea"). But for a different vision on a 'supposed' cyberwar: "White House Cyber Security Guy: There Is No Cyberwar", TechDirt, 9 March 2010
However, the cynics add that Google never made the money it expected to make; it has only one third of the search engines market in China which is dominated by Baidu= Governmental Chinese version of search engine. So its decision may not rest so much on willingness to defend democratic values through guaranteeing freedom of expression, than on profit-making interests.
In addition, Google's decision in 2006 to censor results hurt the company's reputation, so much that one of its founder, Sergey Brin, called it a "net negative" (see Guardian's article, 13 January 2010, page 3; and page 14, 14 January 2010).
Nevertheless, cynicism may not be so much on the agenda. Let us face it: Google is not the new knight defending freedom of expression without awaiting something in return. On the other hand, personal history certainly plays a role here. Sergey Brin emigrated to the US in 1979, aged six, with his parents who were victims of anti-semitism, even under the then-USSR. (Guardian's, Tania Branigan, 14 January 2010, front page).
China's reaction was at the beginning cautious... and heavily censored as few headlines made it on the newspapers/online versions in China itself. Some commentators, pro-governmental line, did not see Google's decision as 1) affecting China much (there are other search engines), 2) as a desinterested decision (aka, Google does not make enough profit to stay).
What seems to emerge on the side, with other companies finding it difficult to enter the Chinese market, is a picture of full protection of Chinese interests (economic or not) against foreign companies and Governments. It fits with a presentation I attended in September 2009 at the Society for Legal Scholars (SLS) in Keele, where the speaker demonstrated that Chinese law favoured chinese contract law in all dispute resolutions, a concept that systematically discards foreign law; in other words, private international law in China is resolved by the quasi-systemic application of local law to the exclusion of foreign law. An article on the International Herald Tribune of 14 January 2010 page 15 is quite revealing on those behaviours. The article even ends up by saying, in more polite form, that foreign companies sell their soul to China, accepting to give for free, for fear of loosing a market share, what they would never have tolerated in other countries. I know the story is not exagerated. In his second volume on Globalisation, which focuses on Water, Eric Orsenna (French Academician and writer) explains that the French company Alstom more or less gave the plans of its water turbines for the three Dams on the yellow river, in exchange for obtaining the market... Except that the turbine plan is now copied and Alstrom not needed...
"China stifles news of Google’s defiance", The International Herald Tribune, 14 January 2010 (p. 1)
"Google Is Not Alone in Discontent, But Its Threat Stands Out", The New York TImes, 14 January 2010 (by the way, this habit of the NYT and IHT not to use the same title in the printed and online version is frankly annoying).
Eric Orsenna, L'avenir de l'eau : Petit précis de mondialisation II (Broché), Fayard 2008 (The future of water: little manual on globalisation II - NB: the first volume was on coton and is as interesting as the second, if anybody can read French - by the way, it is not a complicated French although it is beautifully written).
If we take into account China's policy in conducting business, then it appears very clearly that accepting to censor the results could only amount to failure in terms of believing that the economy will allow for freedom of expression to grow. The economy is in itself a close circuit; nothing from the outside will penetrate it, especially NOT freedom of expression. After 30 years of economic "liberalisation", the West should start looking at the full picture, rather than avoiding the issue: China will not become a democracy by free market. See James Kynge, "Full circle", Financial Times 16/17 January 2010.
"China and the west: Full circle", Financial TImes, 15 January 2010 (printed version, 16/17 january 2010 (like for the Guardian, can't they just give one date???)
Viewed under that light, Bill Gates' comment is not as irresponsible as it may first appear. It is a realist comment: that anyone doing business in China has to accept the fact that democracy is out of question. Then the question is: does one have the guts, to take a familiar expression, not to do business? The West's answer so far is certainly not living to its Enlightenment's ideals.
"Playing the wall game in China" The Guardian, 18 January 2010
Additionally see:
"Google may lose business, but gains good will", Miguel Helft, International Herald Tribune, printed version January 16/17, 2010 (can't find the link online)
"Why fearful china stamps out dissent", Peter Beaumont, The Observer, 17 January 2010, p. 22 (can't find the link online either)
Will Google stand up to France and Italy, too? The Guardian, 14 January 2010
"China Issues Another Warning to Google on Enforced Censorship of the Internet" link to NY Times by Business and HR website, 12 March 2010
Friday, 5 February 2010
Piracy
"Lord Lucas Keeps Wanting To Chip Away At Digital Economy Bill: Exempt Search Engines" (TechDirt, 28 January 2010).
"Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal" (TechDirt, 28 January 2010)
seriously, first time I ever heard that one, but it is so crazy it just highlights the financial issue behing the fight against piracy by big companies "Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime" (TechDirt 29 January 2010)
This will be worth reading and transferring to other types of offences than piracy: it corresponds exactly to what I said if I believe the comment:
"Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops" (TechDirt 4 February 2010)
"Insult To Injury: Mandelson Wants Those Wrongly Kicked Off The Internet To Pay To Appeal" (TechDirt, 28 January 2010)
seriously, first time I ever heard that one, but it is so crazy it just highlights the financial issue behing the fight against piracy by big companies "Seriously: Where Is The Link Between Copyright Infringement And Terrorism/Organized Crime" (TechDirt 29 January 2010)
This will be worth reading and transferring to other types of offences than piracy: it corresponds exactly to what I said if I believe the comment:
"Decision In iiNet Case Explains Why ISPs Cannot Effectively Be Copyright Cops" (TechDirt 4 February 2010)
Surveillance
Apparently, "Obama Quietly Issues Ruling Saying It's Legal For The FBI To Break The Law On Accessing Phone Records" (TechDirt, 22 January 2010)
and I find this even more astonishing: the harm exists, it is to each individual. "Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned" (TechDirt, 22 January 2010)
It is as astonishing as Bill Gates stating it's business and if Google does not want to comply to China, too bad! http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/MicrosoftreChinacensorship (25 January 2010)
and I find this even more astonishing: the harm exists, it is to each individual. "Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Warrantless Wiretapping, Appeal Planned" (TechDirt, 22 January 2010)
It is as astonishing as Bill Gates stating it's business and if Google does not want to comply to China, too bad! http://www.business-humanrights.org/Documents/MicrosoftreChinacensorship (25 January 2010)
Friday, 22 January 2010
Censorship: Google/China and others
Obviously, the headlines for the past 10 days are aboug Google's declaration and movement of withdrawal from China, but as pointed out, well, if Google withdraws from China, why not other countries like India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Russia...?
"Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)
"Will Google Pull Out Of India, Australia And Other Countries Over Internet Censorship?" (TechDirt, 14 January 2010)
and I would say of Italy?
The technical details of privacy/surveillance are worth understanding as it seems that China hacked the security features/apps used by Google. "China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)
For a reaction to Google's announcement: "Clinton urges Internet freedom, condemns cyber attacks " (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 21 January 2010) with a series of links to the media
and for an analysis in French: "Pékin-Google : le bras de fer s'engage" (Business and HR Resource Centre, 22 January 2010)
"Google Considers Leaving China If China Will Not Allow Uncensored Search" (TechDirt, 13 January 2010)
"Will Google Pull Out Of India, Australia And Other Countries Over Internet Censorship?" (TechDirt, 14 January 2010)
and I would say of Italy?
"Proposal In Italy Would Require Gov't Authorization To Upload Any Video" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010) and for the French version, "Italie : un décret pour contrôler les vidéos du Web" (Net Eco, 19 January 2010)
The technical details of privacy/surveillance are worth understanding as it seems that China hacked the security features/apps used by Google. "China Google Hack Shows Security Gaps... Or Issues In Online Surveillance Apps?" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)
For a reaction to Google's announcement: "Clinton urges Internet freedom, condemns cyber attacks " (Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, 21 January 2010) with a series of links to the media
and for an analysis in French: "Pékin-Google : le bras de fer s'engage" (Business and HR Resource Centre, 22 January 2010)
Privacy, piracy, copyrights and censorship
The theme of the week seems to turn around protecting privacy.
"Hacking Surpassing Human Error For Data Breaches?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010). For the author, the answer is actually positive: hacking is a major threat, more that insiders leaking data.
In the fight against piracy, will privacy be waived? "Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)
"Hacking Surpassing Human Error For Data Breaches?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010). For the author, the answer is actually positive: hacking is a major threat, more that insiders leaking data.
In the fight against piracy, will privacy be waived? "Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules" (TechDirt, 18 January 2010)
"The Similarity Between ACTA And Chinese Internet Censorship" (TechDirt, 20 January 2010) in that both requires strong involvement from ISPs. I also think that both infringed on privacy. But the issue of ISPs involvement is also close to more traditional searches and seizures: "Once Again, FBI Caught Breaking The Law In Gathering Phone Call Info; But Real Issue Is Why Telcos Let Them" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010)
Obviously, all this debate supposes there is such thing as privacy about data online. Hence the issue about cloud computing and expectations of privacy. "Do You Have Any Legal Right To Privacy For Information Stored Online?" (TechDirt, 19 January 2010) THe US have actually articulated that notion of expectation of privacy, even though the answer is not satisfactory: it is not because it is online that there is no expectation of privacy. It all depends on where and what was intended to be done with the data.
France Considers 'Right To Forget' Law, Apparently Not Realizing The Internet Never Forgets (TechDirt, 8 January 2010)
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Surveillance
"New Zealand Decides To Spy On An Awful Lot Of Your Online Activity" (TechDirt, 5 January 2010)
"How China's Attempts To Censor The Internet Are Failing " (TechDirt, 4 January 2010)
"Russian ISP Blocking Political Opposition Websites" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)
with the interesting view of the WWW creator, Tim Berners-Lee Web inventor: " 'Snooping' authorities threaten Internet " (Euractiv, 3 December 2009)
"How China's Attempts To Censor The Internet Are Failing " (TechDirt, 4 January 2010)
"Russian ISP Blocking Political Opposition Websites" (TechDirt, 18 December 2009)
with the interesting view of the WWW creator, Tim Berners-Lee Web inventor: " 'Snooping' authorities threaten Internet " (Euractiv, 3 December 2009)
Thursday, 12 November 2009
China and censorship
Quite a funny one and not about political censorship, but about a Governmental Chinese report on copyrights whose access has been blocked... by the software GOogle used to avoid malwares.
That's Rich: China Accuses Google Of Censorship (TechDirt, 28 October 2009)
That's Rich: China Accuses Google Of Censorship (TechDirt, 28 October 2009)
Thursday, 2 July 2009
China Tries To Ban Virtual Gold Farmers | Techdirt
China Tries To Ban Virtual Gold Farmers | Techdirt (30 June 2009)
China Government announced it was cracking on the practice. As noted in the post, hard to see why such a stance. The practice does not have an immense impact on the country's economy. Social rights of workers? hardly so. Does the Government want to control the practice in order to do it itself?
China Government announced it was cracking on the practice. As noted in the post, hard to see why such a stance. The practice does not have an immense impact on the country's economy. Social rights of workers? hardly so. Does the Government want to control the practice in order to do it itself?
Update on China's filtering software
China puts brakes on internet-filter rollout - ZDNet.co.uk (01 July 2009)
After the uproar when people learnt that China ordered computers made in the US to incorporate a filtering software, there seems to be a back up. Obviously, the Minister of Industry and Information Technology refused to acknowledge attempts to curtail free speech. As in the West, the official line is that filtering is necessary because of child porn. But I wonder what it really means? Will they do it next time without bothering to say anything, 'hidding' the software in the hard drive?
PC makers lobby, but prepare for China censorware (ZDnet.co.uk 29 June 2009)
See also in French:
Logiciel de filtrage Web : la Chine fait marche arrière (JDN, 1 July 2009)
I don't think the EU Chamber of commerce's opinion had any influence, although one never knows how much concerns about money may have weighted in the balance.
EU Chamber urges China to rethink internet filter (ZDnet.co.uk, 30 June 2009)
After the uproar when people learnt that China ordered computers made in the US to incorporate a filtering software, there seems to be a back up. Obviously, the Minister of Industry and Information Technology refused to acknowledge attempts to curtail free speech. As in the West, the official line is that filtering is necessary because of child porn. But I wonder what it really means? Will they do it next time without bothering to say anything, 'hidding' the software in the hard drive?
PC makers lobby, but prepare for China censorware (ZDnet.co.uk 29 June 2009)
See also in French:
Logiciel de filtrage Web : la Chine fait marche arrière (JDN, 1 July 2009)
I don't think the EU Chamber of commerce's opinion had any influence, although one never knows how much concerns about money may have weighted in the balance.
EU Chamber urges China to rethink internet filter (ZDnet.co.uk, 30 June 2009)
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
From filtering to software piracy
How the desire to control child pornography turns into a piracy/ illegal trade issue...Apparently, upon request of China, computers shifted from the US to China must contain a 'Chinese' filtering software... which code is partly stolen from a US company!
Chinese censorware has stolen code, says US firm (ZDNet.co.uk, 15 June 2009)
update: "US asks China to drop filtered software " (ZDnet.co.uk, 25 June 2009)
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
Censorship/filtering policies - contrast?
Because of being late in updating the blog, I saw the two following post/article at the same time.
One would expect a clear difference because of the values the two countries attach or do not attach to democracy. The similarities are striking and worrying.
"Why Are Australia's Would-Be 'Net Censors So Opposed To Transparency?" (TechDirt, 19 March 2009)
"China Blocks YouTube, Again" (TechDirt, 24 March 2009). Yes, the interesting question is when did they allow YouTube again? Once YouTube has removed the problematic content? Or when they devise a tool to block access to the videos at stake?
One would expect a clear difference because of the values the two countries attach or do not attach to democracy. The similarities are striking and worrying.
"Why Are Australia's Would-Be 'Net Censors So Opposed To Transparency?" (TechDirt, 19 March 2009)
"China Blocks YouTube, Again" (TechDirt, 24 March 2009). Yes, the interesting question is when did they allow YouTube again? Once YouTube has removed the problematic content? Or when they devise a tool to block access to the videos at stake?
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Paying people to filter the internet
China seems to now pay people per porn website discovered and reported. Being cynical, I wonder to which extent this solution might be cheaper than hiring them as full-time employees for the Great Firewall. A future law and economics study?
In terms of human rights and liberties, well, using people to report websites (free of charge) is a common procedure in most countries. UK does it with Internet Watch Foundation; France does it with the Internet Gouvernance website and system, etc... None however when as far as paying them! The question is probably how the prospect of being paid could affect the "objectivity" (if any) of the person's appreciating the contents of the website. As usual, how the information reported is used by Government or non Governmental agencies is crucial as lack of transparency promotes censorship and violation of human rights.
"China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes" (13 February 2009)
In terms of human rights and liberties, well, using people to report websites (free of charge) is a common procedure in most countries. UK does it with Internet Watch Foundation; France does it with the Internet Gouvernance website and system, etc... None however when as far as paying them! The question is probably how the prospect of being paid could affect the "objectivity" (if any) of the person's appreciating the contents of the website. As usual, how the information reported is used by Government or non Governmental agencies is crucial as lack of transparency promotes censorship and violation of human rights.
"China Looks To Build Human Firewall With Fun, Prizes" (13 February 2009)
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Offensive content: no need to filter? The (US) FCC chairman's position
He does not believe in filtering internet content because people choose what to look at rather than are bombarded with what they do not want to look at (unlike TV packages it seems).
Technically this is true. In addition, we would add that filtering the internet is nearly a lost battle unless we build firewalls like China's. And we certainly do not want to go down that route.
"Kevin Martin Opposes Regulating Internet Content?" (TechDirt, 13 January 2009)
So where does it leave us? First, there is no doubt that offensive content exists. Its definition may vary from country to country, but most do recognise that offensiveness has legal consequences. If we do not question that basis, the question is how do we imagine the legal consequences to be? Traditionally, faced with offensiveness, states have forbidden or regulated by rating. Problem with the internet is that prohibition is nearly a lost cause, and rating is difficult. Those who worked on hate crimes are worried about enclosure, rather than about distribution, i.e. enclosure of those filled with hatred within their own world; and thus they propose as a way forward dialogue.
When it comes to chatrooms, newsgroups and the like, dialogue or at least responses from non haters are easy.
When it comes to websites and distribution of materials, it's more difficult to promote dialogue because per se the technology used is not based on dialogue. On the other hand, filtering etc... is problematic and questionable. Should we then use the ISPs to put a warning, like some of the watchdogs have, instead of being cops like for copyrights issues?
"UK Government To Force ISPs To Become Copyright Cops" (TechDirt, 19 January 2009)
Technically this is true. In addition, we would add that filtering the internet is nearly a lost battle unless we build firewalls like China's. And we certainly do not want to go down that route.
"Kevin Martin Opposes Regulating Internet Content?" (TechDirt, 13 January 2009)
So where does it leave us? First, there is no doubt that offensive content exists. Its definition may vary from country to country, but most do recognise that offensiveness has legal consequences. If we do not question that basis, the question is how do we imagine the legal consequences to be? Traditionally, faced with offensiveness, states have forbidden or regulated by rating. Problem with the internet is that prohibition is nearly a lost cause, and rating is difficult. Those who worked on hate crimes are worried about enclosure, rather than about distribution, i.e. enclosure of those filled with hatred within their own world; and thus they propose as a way forward dialogue.
When it comes to chatrooms, newsgroups and the like, dialogue or at least responses from non haters are easy.
When it comes to websites and distribution of materials, it's more difficult to promote dialogue because per se the technology used is not based on dialogue. On the other hand, filtering etc... is problematic and questionable. Should we then use the ISPs to put a warning, like some of the watchdogs have, instead of being cops like for copyrights issues?
"UK Government To Force ISPs To Become Copyright Cops" (TechDirt, 19 January 2009)
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
censorship and China
Surprise! Net Censorship Circumvention Tools Sell User Data (TechDirt, 12 January 2009)
Internet Companies Apologize To China For Being Too Good (TecDirt, 9 January 2209)
Internet Companies Apologize To China For Being Too Good (TecDirt, 9 January 2209)
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
Censorship - China and its policy focus
A good point, which shows how much China censorship is political: "If China's Great Firewall Is So Effective, Why Can't It Stop All The Malware Hosted There?" (TechDirt, 25 June 2008)
Sunday, 28 December 2008
Censorship again
In other words, China blocks access to the NY Times, not a surprise: "La Chine bloque le site du New York Times" (JDN, 22 December 2008)
"Vietnam Continues Online Censorship; Outlaws 'Subversive' Blogs; Puts Liability On ISPs" (TechDirt, 24 December 2008)
"Australian Filtering Boss: Turning Off Blog And Comments" (TechDirt, 24 December 2008) and Australia delaying filtering due to technical and organisational problems "Australian Net Censorship Plan Delayed Temporarily" (TechDirt, 29 December 2008)
"Vietnam Continues Online Censorship; Outlaws 'Subversive' Blogs; Puts Liability On ISPs" (TechDirt, 24 December 2008)
"Australian Filtering Boss: Turning Off Blog And Comments" (TechDirt, 24 December 2008) and Australia delaying filtering due to technical and organisational problems "Australian Net Censorship Plan Delayed Temporarily" (TechDirt, 29 December 2008)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
