China ' blocks' main " Google.com " site

[poedua]

China has censorship rules. According to the linked BBC article....

- Foreign websites covering politics and sensitive issues are blocked
- Chinese internet providers face strict censorship
- Websites, forums and blogs must officially register and are monitored
- China's internet 'police' thought to number 50,000 censors

Google, Microsoft, & Yahoo have agreed to allow censorship of their sites in China.

- Is censorship OK if it means Google, Microsoft, & Yahoo gains acces to 100 million Chinese internet users, OR are Google, Microsoft, & Yahoo comprimising their principles and endorsing restrictions to freedom of speech ?

- Would it bother you or not if - in theory - you only had access to google.ca in canada and not google.com ?

China 'blocks' main Google site

Chinese authorities have blocked most domestic users from the main Google.com search engine[ and Google News and Google Mail ] a media watchdog said. Internet users in major Chinese cities faced difficulties accessing Google's international site in the past week, Reporters Without Borders said.

But Google.cn, the controversial Chinese language version launched in January, has not been affected.

The site blocks politically sensitive material to comply with government censorship rules. "It was only to be expected that Google.com would be gradually sidelined after the censored version was launched in January," Reporters Without Borders said in a statement.

"Google has just definitively joined the club of Western companies that comply with online censorship in China," the organisation said.

Google.com, the search engine's uncensored international site, had previously been available to Chinese web users, but problems accessing the site had been reported across the country recently. It was blocked nationwide on 31 May, the statement said.

The blocking was also being extended to Google News and Google Mail, Reporters Without Borders said. 'Principled approach' A spokeswoman for Goggle in Beijing said that the problem was under investigation.

The spokeswoman, Cui Jin, said she could not give any more information.

On Tuesday, Google co-founder Sergey Brin defended his company's decision to launch the censored Google.cn service, a move which drew heavy criticism. "We felt that perhaps we could compromise our principles but provide ultimately more information for the Chinese and be a more effective service," he said.

"Perhaps now the principled approach makes more sense." In addition to Google, US companies Microsoft, Yahoo and Cisco Systems have also been accused of accommodating China's demands on censorship in return for access to its huge internet market.

The Chinese government's internet filtering is some of the most sophisticated in the world. Content considered to be a threat, including references to the Tiananmen Square massacre and notable dissidents, is blocked.

Chinese authorities have also stepped up measures against software designed to bypass internet censorship, the Reporters Without Borders statement said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5055170.stm

[teknoluv]

- Would it bother you or not if - in theory - you only had access to google.ca in canada and not google.com ?

A LOT OF people don't know that they ACTUALLY are on Google.ca instead of Google.com.

[bigbug]

China is also blocking some tech info and programming forums because they discuss anti-censorship technologies. CISCO is the major system provider behind their stupid "information great wall".

[konfusion666]

- Would it bother you or not if - in theory - you only had access to google.ca in canada and not google.com ? [/INDENT]

In Canada it's actually not an issue because both .ca and .com access the same Database AFAIK

(you would have to amend your question with something like "if google.ca could only access a subset of the main google.com repository")

[poedua]

In Canada it's actually not an issue because both .ca and .com access the same Database AFAIK

(you would have to amend your question with something like "if google.ca could only access a subset of the main google.com repository")

Then what is the marketing / technical rationale for google.ca vs google.com if they are identical in terms of information availability ?

How do the 2 differ ?

[konfusion666]

Then what is the marketing / technical rationale for google.ca vs google.com if they are identical in terms of information availability ?

How do the 2 differ ?

even though it accesses the same database, i'm sure it uses targeted prioritization to deliver more "canadian" results at the top.
and targeted canadian-sourced ads, etc.

[javaprogrammer]

what's new peodua?

-----------------------------

Internet censorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.
Internet censorship is control or suppression of material an individual can publish or access on the Internet. The legal issues are similar to offline censorship.

One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted elsewhere. Conversely, attempts by one government to prevent its citizens from seeing certain material can have the effect of restricting foreigners, because the government may take action against Internet sites anywhere in the world, if they host objectionable material.

Total censorship of information on the Internet, however, is very difficult (or impossible) to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) allow unconditional free speech, as the technology guarantees that material cannot be removed and the author of any information is impossible to link to a physical identity or organization.

Contents [hide]

1 Censorship by governments
2 Censorship by organizations
3 Censorship by online communities
4 Commonly censored websites
5 See also
6 External links



[edit]
Censorship by governments

The majority of Internet access in Muslim countries is through government-controlled proxy servers that block access to sites that are considered to be 'immoral'. This can include not only directly pornographic websites but also certain chat forums discussing any issues of sexuality, controversial blogging hosts, sites showing nudity of any description (including online businesses selling women's lingerie), as well as politically sensitive or controversial topics, such as websites that compare Islam to other religions, or websites about other religions other than Islam. Copies of pages are reviewed and eventually blocked when they do not meet set criteria. Examples include:

Morocco, as of March 2006 had blocked access to many blogging sites, such as LiveJournal.

Tunisia has blocked thousands of websites (such as pornography, mail, and translation services) and peer-to-peer and FTP transfer. This filtering is performed using a transparent proxy and port blocking.

Pakistan has blocked access to websites critical of the government. Currently, the government has blocked blogs hosted on blogspot.com. A ban on pornographic websites has also been enacted.

The United Arab Emirates forcibly censors the internet using Secure Computing's solution. The nation's sole ISP Etisalat bans pornography, politically sensitive material, and anything against the moral values of the UAE.

Denmarks biggest internet service provider TDC A/S launched a DNS-based child pornography filter on October 18, 2005 in cooperation with the state police department and Save the Children, a charity organisation. Since then, all major providers have joined and as of May 2006, 98% of the Danish internet users are restricted by the filter. [1]. The filter caused some controversy in march 2006, when a legal sexsite named bizar.dk was caught in the filter, sparking discussion about the reliability, accuracy and credibility of the filter. [2].

Norway's major internet service providers have a DNS filter which blocks access to sites authorities claim are known to provide child pornography, similar to Denmark's filter.

Other countries may censor the Internet for political reasons:

Burma maintains the restrictive Myanmar Wide Web.

The People's Republic of China has set up systems for Internet censorship that are collectively known as the Great Firewall of China.

Cuba has made Internet usage illegal without a permit. For the most part only medical doctors can get permits, making the neighbourhood doctor the place to go to send e-mail to family abroad, but the Cuban government has been trying to restrict this.

French courts demanded Yahoo! block Nazi material in the case LICRA vs. Yahoo. The case is currently on appeal for an en banc rehearing.

The Maldives has prosecuted citizens for publishing articles critical of the Government on the internet.

In Singapore, 3 people were arrested and charged with sedition for posting racist comments on the Internet, of which two have been sentenced to imprisonment.

South Korea has ordered its internet service providers not to allow access to various sites it considers too sympathetic to North Korea.

Syria has banned websites for political reasons and arrested people accessing them.

Significant efforts have been made in Thailand to oppose sites that are representing illegal activities. Activities such as gambling, drug usage and pornography are strictly banned, using DNS control in Thailand and, more effectively, a transparent proxy.This makes the website appear to be inaccessible. Also, the government has banned sites that discuss circumventing internet censorship.

The United States of America enacted in 1996 the Communications Decency Act, which severely restricted online speech that could potentially be seen by a minor – which, it was argued, was most of online speech. Free speech advocates, however, managed to have most of the act overturned by the courts. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the discussion and dissemination of technology that could be used to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms, and makes it easier to act against alleged copyright infringement on the Internet.

Other forms of censorship:

In Brazil, the state of São Paulo was the first state to enact an act requiring cybercafés to keep a user's list with address, full name, date of birth, phone number, and an identity card number. [3]

Italy bans the use of foreign bookmakers over the internet by mandating certain edits to DNS host files of Italian ISPs. [4] [5]

United Kingdom, the new Home Office Minister Vernon Croaker set a deadline of the end of 2007 for all ISPs to implement a “Cleanfeed”-style network level content blocking platform. Currently, the only web sites ISPs are expected to block access to are sites the Internet Watch Foundation has identified as containing images of child abuse. However such a platform is capable of blocking access to any web site added to the list (at least, to the extent that the implementation is effective), making it a simple matter to change this policy in future. The Home Office has previously indicated that it has considered requiring ISPs to block access to articles on the web deemed to be “glorifying terrorism”, within the meaning of the new Terrorism Act 2006. [6] (See Censorship in the United Kingdom#Internet censorship.)

[edit]
Censorship by organizations
The efforts of Scientology to stifle online discussion of its activities has been seen by many as a form of censorship. [7]

[edit]
Censorship by online communities
Forums and chatrooms frequently have moderators, who will edit or remove material against the rules of that community. The scope of these rules varies from community to community - some will want material to be suitable for a specific audience, whilst others only require discussions to be kept within the law. Many USENET groups are unmoderated.

[javaprogrammer]

Censorship in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The US Bill of Rights guarantees the rights of citizens to speak and publish freely, as well as to "assemble" to demand "redress of grievances" (see First Amendment).

However, there has always been censorship in the United States.

Contents [hide]
1 Broadcast media censorship
2 Restrictions on political campaigns
3 War reporting and national security
4 Pornography
5 Cryptography software
6 Libel
7 References
8 Censorship in the past
9 See also
9.1 Rating systems and industry self-regulation
9.2 Related techniques of suppression
9.3 Free speech advocates
10 External links



[edit]
Broadcast media censorship
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates "indecent" free-to-air broadcasting. It can issue fines if, for example, the broadcaster employs certain swear words.

Radio personality Howard Stern has been a frequent target of fines. This led to his leaving broadcast radio and signing on with Sirius Satellite Radio in 2004.

The Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy increased the political pressure on the FCC to vigorously police the airwaves. In addition, Congress increased the maximum fine the FCC may levy from US$268,500 per incident to US$375,000.

Critics of Television Broadcast Media throughout the latter half of the 20th century on into the 21st have expressed their concerns regarding the filtration of content being offered to citizens of the United States through the modern-day journalism platform. They argue that media conglomerates within the U.S. are responsible for painting a very limited/pointed picture of U.S. military involvement throughout the world, causing an uninformed political support by U.S. citizens.

[edit]
Restrictions on political campaigns
Political campaigning is regulated, and the regulations have become more restrictive over time (see campaign finance reform). For example, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 regulates the purchase of TV and radio advertising that identifies a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or nominating convention, or 60 days of a general election.

Supporters of the regulations say that the restrictions are necessary to prevent corruption, and so far, the Supreme Court has upheld them by a 5-4 decision.

[edit]
War reporting and national security
The Office of Censorship heavily censored reporting during World War II. On December 19, 1941 Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8985, which established the Office of Censorship and conferred on its director the power to censor international communications in "his absolute discretion." Byron Price was selected as the Director of Censorship. However, the censorship was not limited to reporting. "Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details."[1] Since that time war censorship has been relatively light until the advent of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. In January of 1991, a few weeks before the U.S.-led UN invasion of Iraq during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, Secretary of the Defense, Dick Cheney, had the Pentagon issue a ban on media coverage of returning war casualties. Several past controversies were the failed attempt to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War and the daily televising of the Iran Hostage Crisis by the national broadcast media, that is believed to have led to the re-election loss of Jimmy Carter in 1980.

In 1979, the magazine The Progressive was sued by the U.S. government (United States v. The Progressive, Inc.) and temporarily blocked from publishing an article that purported to reveal the "secret" of the hydrogen bomb. The article was eventually published.

Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1956, patents may be withheld and kept secret on grounds of national security.

On September 11, 2005 the American Civil Liberty Union reports:

30,000 National Security Letters Issued Annually Demanding Information about Americans: Patriot Act Removed Need for FBI to Connect Records to Suspected Terrorists
[...] According to the Washington Post, universities and casinos have received these letters and been forced to comply with the demands to turn over private student and customer information. Anyone who receives an NSL is gagged - forever - from telling anyone that the FBI demanded records, even if their identity has already been made public.
In New York and Connecticut, the ACLU has challenged the NSL provision that was dramatically expanded by Section 505 of the Patriot Act. The legislation amended the existing NSL power by permitting the FBI to demand records of people who are not connected to terrorism and who are not suspected of any wrongdoing. [...]
In February 2004 a study from FAIR, the national media watch group, found that 76 percent of all 319 news sources appearing in stories about Iraq on the nightly network newscasts (ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News) in the month of October 2003 were current or former government or military officials.

On February 17, 2006 U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated, that "in this war, some of the most critical battles may not be fought in the mountains of Afghanistan or the streets of Iraq, but in the newsrooms in places like New York and London and Cairo and elsewhere. [...] While the enemy is increasingly skillful at manipulating the media and using the tools of communications to their advantage, it should be noted that we have an advantage as well, and that is, quite simply, that the truth is on our side, and ultimately, in my view, truth wins out. I believe with every bone in my body that free people, exposed to sufficient information, will, over time, find their way to right decisions."

[edit]
Pornography
US courts have ruled that the First Amendment protects "indecent" pornography from regulation, but not "obscene" pornography. Enforcement of federal obscenity laws has increased under the Bush administration. People convicted of distributing obscene pornography face long prison terms and asset forfeiture.

In 1996, Congress passed Communications Decency Act, with the aim of restricting Internet pornography. Court rulings have struck down much of the law, however.

A widely publicized case from 1990 was that of Robert Mapplethorpe's photography at a Cincinnati arts center. The show resulted in the prosecution of the center and its director, who were acquitted.

Child Pornography is illegal in the US.

[edit]
Cryptography software
The export of cryptography software is regulated as a munition under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, although in recent years the regulations have relaxed, due in part to industry lobbying.

Daniel J. Bernstein challenged the regulations (see Bernstein v. United States) on First Amendment grounds, and won his case, but some regulations remain.

See also export of cryptography.

[edit]

Libel
In the Internet era, libel laws are increasingly being used against individuals expressing their views in public forums. Although it is difficult to win a libel case in the U.S., it can still be an effective means of intimidation and deterrence, since defending oneself against a lawsuit is expensive and time consuming.

[javaprogrammer]

The issue is really not that different from NSA (US GOv) monitoring US and Canadian residents' phone conversations.

[gilboman]

The issue is really not that different from NSA (US GOv) monitoring US and Canadian residents' phone conversations.

first, they dont monitor EVERYBODY.. moreover, you are trying to equate censoring swearwords in public broadcast to china's policy of systamatically blocking any/all material that is in contradiction of its regime.

you are trying to say that what the nazis did is same as excuting people for their crimes in the US.

2nd..China's absurd regressive policies for corruption applies to EVERYBODY. that is the only way the corrupt government and their regressive policies can ensure their people are blind to reality and continue to support a corrupt regime.

i know you love your backwards china, but you have to accept reality of the oppressive, restricitve and highly secretive regime that controls the people and what they can/can't learn.

it's quite sad that you can't see the difference in US censorship and china's opression. sure the US is not perfect but it is very very far from china's blockade of information so its citizens can be informed about the true nature of their government and how it uses the majority of its citizens as commodity and not human life.

[javaprogrammer]

China has censorship rules. According to the linked BBC article....

- Foreign websites covering politics and sensitive issues are blocked
- Chinese internet providers face strict censorship
- Websites, forums and blogs must officially register and are monitored
- China's internet 'police' thought to number 50,000 censors

.......

So do dozens of other countries. Oh you forgot to mention Pornography is censored in China with the same equipment.

[Firebot]

Then what is the marketing / technical rationale for google.ca vs google.com if they are identical in terms of information availability ?

How do the 2 differ ?

google.ca is offered both in english and french, and allows you to access pages which are only from Canada during your search. I find it useful for when I want to buy a computer part or something else online, and want to see only stores that are based in Canada.

[Ojam]

Google.ca is missing a number of google services, and page ranking are different between the two. Also even if you put in google.com you are automatically taken too google.ca unless you type google.com/ncr

[javaprogrammer]

first, they dont monitor EVERYBODY.. moreover, you are trying to equate censoring swearwords in public broadcast to china's policy of systamatically blocking any/all material that is in contradiction of its regime.

you are trying to say that what the nazis did is same as excuting people for their crimes in the US.

2nd..China's absurd regressive policies for corruption applies to EVERYBODY. that is the only way the corrupt government and their regressive policies can ensure their people are blind to reality and continue to support a corrupt regime.

i know you love your backwards china, but you have to accept reality of the oppressive, restricitve and highly secretive regime that controls the people and what they can/can't learn.

it's quite sad that you can't see the difference in US censorship and china's opression. sure the US is not perfect but it is very very far from china's blockade of information so its citizens can be informed about the true nature of their government and how it uses the majority of its citizens as commodity and not human life.

what the F-ck? I was just saying censorship is not unique to China.

[javaprogrammer]

gilboman, I recognize it's an issue. Pls have a look at my original words.