China and the Internet

[Richie Stan]

How successful has China been in restricting its people on the internet?

And is this a model of how the internet can be policed?

[Nemesis9]

There is a world of difference between policing the Internet, and censoring it.
I'm all for policing the net, weeding out paedophiles and fraudsters etc, but what is happening in China is a thinly veiled attempt to prevent the population from accessing any information that the state disapproves of. This includes information on 'Human Rights', 'China's own history' (only the state approved version anyhow), 'Democracy', 'Freedom of speech', etc.
I'm afraid to say, after visiting there, it's a policy that is proving remarkable effective, for the moment...
This type of rigid state control ALWAYS falls in the end, and the repercussions usually involve some form of civil disorder, property destruction and a period of instability and anarchy. It is a foolish attempt, by foolish old men to cling to power. Be grateful you have the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers here, as this site is almost certainly banned in China.

[boobesque]

the great firewall of china is effective in its censoring, but people can still access websites if they try hard enough. if someone in sweeden or wherever sets up a proxy server, a chinaman or woman could use this proxy to redirect to theanswerbank.co.uk. they could use this sweedish proxy for a while until it is blocked by the firewall.

great, you may think, but you have to find these servers before the hundreds or thousands of people who are paid by the chinese government to find and block them

[Zen]

Aided by Google and Microsoft.................

[fo3nix]

The internet cannot, and should not, be policed.

[Richie Stan]

You say the Internet should not be policed.

Why should it be any different to everything else?

What make the Internet any different to say publication laws
?

[fo3nix]

Simply because you cannot police it. It's impossible. They try, but the internet was set up to allow anonymous access. It's distributed over the planet. If you want to send anything you can encrypt it with algorithms that no government on the planet can crack.

I'm a liberal politically and philosophically. Good things happen when people are free to do stuff. Try and enforce lots of draconian laws and things go wrong. Policing is just the state trying to control its occupants. Sure, very bad things like child porn, murder, etc. should be illegal and punished by death (in my opinion), but trying to control people's lives like the Chinese do is rediculous.

It's like being behind another Iron Curtain again. There used to be a guard by photocopiers to stop people from copying books. Rediculous and, frankly, stupid.

[Richie Stan]

Your argument seems to start that it should not be policed because it cant be policed, not really a valid response.

Do you not contend that a government needs a police force? Who would you turn too if you where mugged or your car stolen, or, and I hope not, worse.

Am I then also with in my rights to slander you in the street, or post racist views through peoples letterboxes, whip up hysteria about religious groups to further my antiSemitic views? (I would not do any of these things I add), all this without even starting on child pornography.

So is the fact you say it cant be policed a reason not to try? The police go after all criminals but they know they wont catch all of them.

[fo3nix]

Sorry yes, that's not my argument (as you say it's not really an argument at all).

I believe the police should prevent and investigate actual acts of violence or similar. I do not believe that saying things, no matter how harmful, should be a crime. I don't care if anyone is anti-semitic or whatever. If they ever act on their thoughts, they should be punished, and we should try to educate them to not form such views. But they should still be free to be able to think whatever they like.

I forget who says it, but there's a quote:
"I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend with my life your right to say it."

Just because a view isn't currently socially acceptable doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

So back to the internet thing: people cannot physically harm you via the internet. If they find out where you live and assault you, then they should be punished. But for the assault, and not for using the internet to obtain their information. Likewise I think that the sharing of indecent pictures of children via the internet is not a crime, but the taking of them and any other abuse of children is.

The internet is all about sharing information. Good things happen when things are shared. The Chinese firewall simply blocks information from getting through -- the state decides for its occuptants what they can and cannot see.

[Richie Stan]

The China firewall is I accept a different matter, but that was just a question about effectiveness of control and management.

As for Policing, if I print lies about you on a web page is that not a criminal offence. Other forms of media are liable.

People can not be physically harm by the Internet, yeah Ill go with that, but if the lies I said on a web site in sighted someone else to attack you am I not guilty of something?

Also do you not think that the ease of sharing indecent pictures and films of children, without a fear of being court, and the profits people can gain from this, has led to an increase in child abuse?

Is it not the government�s job to uphold, adapt or create new laws, in this new age of technology to try to stop the abuse of children?

[fo3nix]

The internet will and has made the sharing of information, including things like child porn, easier. Advances in cryptography techology has made it easier to cover your tracks.

But that's just the way it is. Technology advances. The problem is not the technology, and you cannot (or should not) restrict it because of the few that use it to cover up wrong doings.

As for lible, well I don't think that should be in the law personally. What if you said something incorrectly about me that damaged me somehow, but it was only a mistake on your part. Is it still fair that I sue you? After all, it was just a mistake.