China Toughens Its Restrictions on Use of the Internet

[JSCh]

To claim to be a journalist albeit a blogger with grandeur of being called a journalist, you sure make a feeble attempt at protecting the Chinese here . To reduce Chinese censorship to sim cards and phone registration only is extremely naive of you.

tell us in those forums do your pals discuss and laud how Germany blocks face book , YouTube, nytimes, La times , any news about SARS , earthquakes, corruption etc or have state run media as their only mouthpiece representing their press in Germany? or do they discuss how Germany throws blind dissents in jail and dissents into labor camps for simply dissenting against the govt? I know they don't because not only do they not strive for such censorship and make excuses for the Chinese like you- they sure value their freedoms.

As I said they should have people like you under similar Chinese guidelines in Germany, seeing how you so favor all things Chinese perhaps you dream of a day where germany is back to having freedoms afforded by the Nazi's. They share the similar goals when it comes to censorship

The German gentleman that apparently lives in China is referring to the original article from New York Times.
He is pointing out what the new Chinese legislation actually amount to, mainly to register your name when getting a new phone no.
Because given the China bashing headline, the mud slinging obfuscation that the article carries, only people that actually lives in China knows that it only means registering your name when getting a phone no.
And he also point out that this is common practice nowadays by all the world government.
Obviously the New york times article is fear mongering. Hardly surprising for a Chinese these days because they are becoming increasing aware of these western media antics.
I applaud the gentlemen for calling out the article for what it truly is.

 

[Götterdämmerung]

To claim to be a journalist albeit a blogger with grandeur of being called a journalist, you sure make a feeble attempt at protecting the Chinese here . To reduce Chinese censorship to sim cards and phone registration only is extremely naive of you.

tell us in those forums do your pals discuss and laud how Germany blocks face book , YouTube, nytimes, La times , any news about SARS , earthquakes, corruption etc or have state run media as their only mouthpiece representing their press in Germany? or do they discuss how Germany throws blind dissents in jail and dissents into labor camps for simply dissenting against the govt? I know they don't because not only do they not strive for such censorship and make excuses for the Chinese like you- they sure value their freedoms.

As I said they should have people like you under similar Chinese guidelines in Germany, seeing how you so favor all things Chinese perhaps you dream of a day where germany is back to having freedoms afforded by the Nazi's. They share the similar goals when it comes to censorship

You still fail to show evidence that I write in any bloggs!

Unlike the brainwashed ingoramus that you are, we are very critical of what happens in our country and not what China does since that does not affect our daily life at all. We are critical of our government because we want to prevent them to follow the neo-fascist tendency of the USA. Unlike blocked websites, which can be overcome with technology, the surveillance of my personal life by forced registry does not give any of us a chance to circumvent. It starts with the US forcing our gov. to hand over my personal data when I fly to the US, even if for transit to go to a third country. Butd does not reciprocate when US citizens fly to the EU.

Why do you care more about China than what happens in your adopted country? Does the censorship hampers your dialy life in the US? No?

What a bloody busybody!

The German gentleman that apparently lives in China is referring to the original article from New York Times.
He is pointing out what the new Chinese legislation actually amount to, mainly to register your name when getting a new phone no.
Because given the China bashing headline, the mud slinging obfuscation that the article carries, only people that actually lives in China knows that it only means registering your name when getting a phone no.
And he also point out that this is common practice nowadays by all the world government.
Obviously the New york times article is fear mongering. Hardly surprising for a Chinese these days because they are becoming increasing aware of these western media antics.
I applaud the gentlemen for calling out the article for what it truly is.

Thank you for summarising my post!

I don't live in China but travel there quite often due to my job and my admiration of China.

 

[JayAtl]

The German gentleman that apparently lives in China is referring to the original article from New York Times.
He is pointing out what the new Chinese legislation actually amount to, mainly to register your name when getting a new phone no.
Because given the China bashing headline, the mud slinging obfuscation that the article carries, only people that actually lives in China knows that it only means registering your name when getting a phone no.
And he also point out that this is common practice nowadays by all the world government.
Obviously the New york times article is fear mongering. Hardly surprising for a Chinese these days because they are becoming increasing aware of these western media antics.
I applaud the gentlemen for calling out the article for what it truly is.

First , just a little bit of history-The gentleman @Götterdämmerung has a history of being a china apologist and one of being a fervent one while attacking other nations . This has been his standing on these forums for very long time.

A lackey of all things Chinese is what one who describe him to be. To a point where he will even falsely his own countries stances along with any other country, when he sees a topic that challenges China.

Secondly, the article if you had read it, details very many other restrictions that have nothing to do with phone registrations. For example the very FIRST paragraph of the article :

The Chinese government issued new rules on Friday requiring Internet users to provide their real names to service providers, while assigning Internet companies greater responsibility for deleting forbidden postings and reporting them to the authorities

OR

The new regulations, issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, allow Internet users to continue to adopt pseudonyms for their online postings, but only if they first provide their real names to service providers, a measure that could chill some of the vibrant discourse on the country’s Twitter-like microblogs. The authorities periodically detain and even jail Internet users for politically sensitive comments, such as calls for a multiparty democracy or accusations of impropriety by local officials.

OR

In recent weeks, Internet users in China have exposed a series of sexual and financial scandals that have led to the resignations or dismissals of at least 10 local officials. International news media have also published a series of reports in recent months on the accumulation of wealth by the family members of China’s leaders, and some Web sites carrying such reports, including Bloomberg’s and the English- and Chinese-language sites of The New York Times, have been assiduously blocked, while Internet comments about them have been swiftly deleted.

As you can see above, it has nothing to do with sim cards and phone registrations!

 

[JayAtl]

You still fail to show evidence that I write in any bloggs!

Unlike the brainwashed ingoramus that you are, we are very critical of what happens in our country and not what China does since that does not affect our daily life at all. We are critical of our government because we want to prevent them to follow the neo-fascist tendency of the USA. Unlike blocked websites, which can be overcome with technology, the surveillance of my personal life by forced registry does not give any of us a chance to circumvent. It starts with the US forcing our gov. to hand over my personal data when I fly to the US, even if for transit to go to a third country. Butd does not reciprocate when US citizens fly to the EU.

Why do you care more about China than what happens in your adopted country? Does the censorship hampers your dialy life in the US? No?

What a bloody busybody!


.

Oye blogger who thinks he is a Journalist. You have, while claiming me to be a busy body, attacked the US as a fascist regime- quite hilariously I must say. You being a china apologist here have always , even at the cost of putting Germany down, attacked others and others nations with ignorant statements. Yet again you call me a busy body.

Moving along- You get checked by the US because we had 911 hijackers enjoying time in Germany and Germany has even acknowledged that it such terrorists among it midst. Even so, the article and the argument has nothing to do with national security related laws , rather laws specifically designed to be big brother for the sole purpose of keeping it's people in fear. Blocked websites are not just the methods used, it's tracking of citizens that dare to speak up / dissent and to then have them face repercussions is china's intention as proven with past actions.

Like I said, I'm in favor of them sticking a RFID in you where the sun don't shine and give you the very same treatment . Unfortunately for you , you were born in the wrong era, Nazi's would loved recruiting you SSGötterdämmerung

 

[Götterdämmerung]

Oye blogger who thinks he is a Journalist. You have, while claiming me to be a busy body, attacked the US as a fascist regime- quite hilariously I must say. You being a china apologist here have always , even at the cost of putting Germany down, attacked others and others nations with ignorant statements. Yet again you call me a busy body.

Moving along- You get checked by the US because we had 911 hijackers enjoying time in Germany and Germany has even acknowledged that it such terrorists among it midst. Even so, the article and the argument has nothing to do with national security related laws , rather laws specifically designed to be big brother for the sole purpose of keeping it's people in fear. Blocked websites are not just the methods used, it's tracking of citizens that dare to speak up / dissent and to then have them face repercussions is china's intention as proven with past actions.

Like I said, I'm in favor of them sticking a RFID in you where the sun don't shine and give you the very same treatment . Unfortunately for you , you were born in the wrong era, Nazi's would loved recruiting you SSGötterdämmerung

Where is my so called blogg? Or you pulling things out of your arse again?

Being a good citizen I am obliged to criticise my government and not someone else's government because what happens in my country happens to me. My obligation and duty as a good citizen is to fight against fascist tendency in my country and not attack another country to hide my flaws.

It's the US that has sponsored those islamist terror groups and trained them during the Cold War. What the US has done and still does affects my life and liberty here in Germany and elsewhere gravely and negatively.

Now stop acting like a hysterical fishwife!

 

[JayAtl]

Where is my so called blogg? Or you pulling things out of your arse again?

Being a good citizen I am obliged to criticise my government and not someone else's government because what happens in my country happens to me. My obligation and duty as a good citizen is to fight against fascist tendency in my country and not attack another country to hide my flaws.

It's the US that has sponsored those islamist terror groups and trained them during the Cold War. What the US has done and still does affects my life and liberty here in Germany and elsewhere gravely and negatively.

Now stop acting like a hysterical fishwife!

you claim purity of being patriotic and call me a fishwife( must be a German Chinese term) and then in the same breath cheer lead for Chinese censorship and make ignoramus proclamations that we trained terrorists in your country to come attack us . Webster should have your face next to the definition of the word oxymoron. Your only obligation is to show duplicity in your rants here. Mr Chinese German Blogger who claims that makes him a journalist...

 

[zaxcolix]

....hell this is good news for India.

I think chinese govt. should consider internet dangerous and ban it for all its citizens. Congratulations to the chinese govt. ......will pdf be banned so that we can get rid of 50 cents propaganda officers ?

 

[JayAtl]

ANOTHER BANNED ARTICLE IN CHINA( or soon to be banned since it is out today)

Family of Chinese Regulator Profits in Insurance Firm’s Rise

SHANGHAI — Relatives of a top Chinese regulator profited enormously from the purchase of shares in a once-struggling insurance company that is now one of China’s biggest financial powerhouses, according to interviews and a review of regulatory filings.

The regulator, Dai Xianglong, was the head of China’s central bank and also had oversight of the insurance industry in 2002, when a company his relatives helped control bought a big stake in Ping An Insurance that years later came to be worth billions of dollars. The insurer was drawing new investors ahead of a public stock offering after averting insolvency a few years earlier.

With growing attention on the wealth amassed by families of the politically powerful in China, the investments of Mr. Dai’s relatives illustrate that the riches extend beyond the families of the political elites to the families of regulators with control of the country’s most important business and financial levers. Mr. Dai, an economist, has since left his post with the central bank and now manages the country’s $150 billion social security fund, one of the world’s biggest investment funds.

How much the relatives made in the deal is not known, but analysts say the activity raises further doubts about whether the capital markets are sufficiently regulated in China.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/b...rom-stake-in-insurer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[gambit]

Being a good citizen I am obliged to criticise my government and not someone else's government because what happens in my country happens to me. My obligation and duty as a good citizen is to fight against fascist tendency in my country and not attack another country to hide my flaws.

Spare everyone your pretense. You have no problems criticizing US when it suited you.

It's the US that has sponsored those islamist terror groups and trained them during the Cold War. What the US has done and still does affects my life and liberty here in Germany and elsewhere gravely and negatively.

And it was during the same Cold War that the US protected a good chunk of your country and countrymen that gave you liberty and rights that you enjoy, and that your government grant the same to those who gave US our 9/11.

Now stop acting like a hysterical fishwife!

Take your own advice.

 

[JSCh]

First , just a little bit of history-The gentleman @Götterdämmerung has a history of being a china apologist and one of being a fervent one while attacking other nations . This has been his standing on these forums for very long time.

A lackey of all things Chinese is what one who describe him to be. To a point where he will even falsely his own countries stances along with any other country, when he sees a topic that challenges China.

Secondly, the article if you had read it, details very many other restrictions that have nothing to do with phone registrations. For example the very FIRST paragraph of the article :



OR


OR



As you can see above, it has nothing to do with sim cards and phone registrations!

When the article said

The Chinese government issued new rules on Friday requiring Internet users to provide their real names to service providers

What it means is to register your real name with sim card. That is why I said the article is misleading, because it did not come right out and state a simple fact, it resort to spin doctoring. A person outside of China reading that article would be unlikely to learn that simple fact.
If you checked with Chinese mainlander, you would discovered that an overwhelming majority of them has already registered their name, because there are incentive from the service provider to do that.
The bleak authoritarian picture of a oppressive government that the article painted is an exaggeration of today Chinese society.
Anyone that is able to do critical thinking would have seen that. For eg, the article said,

The new regulations, issued by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, allow Internet users to continue to adopt pseudonyms for their online postings, but only if they first provide their real names to service providers, a measure that could chill some of the vibrant discourse on the country’s Twitter-like microblogs. The authorities periodically detain and even jail Internet users for politically sensitive comments, such as calls for a multiparty democracy or accusations of impropriety by local officials.

and then

In recent weeks, Internet users in China have exposed a series of sexual and financial scandals that have led to the resignations or dismissals of at least 10 local officials.International news media have also published a series of reports in recent months on the accumulation of wealth by the family members of China’s leaders, and some Web sites carrying such reports, including Bloomberg’s and the English- and Chinese-language sites of The New York Times, have been assiduously blocked, while Internet comments about them have been swiftly deleted.

The article state as a fact that Chinese internet user exposing impropriety of government official would be periodically detain and even jail. And then said that exposed official had resigned or dismissed (actually some were also prosecuted and put in prison). That is a contradiction. The truth is, none of the internet user that exposed the official that lead to action by Chinese government has landed in trouble by the authority.

The New York Times publish an article a few months back accusing impropriety of Chinese premier and his family, full of innuendo without conclusive evidence. China would likely see this as an inappropriate action diplomatically and as an attempt by US to disrupt China and to meddle in Chinese internal politic. China subsequently ban New York Times. This is just one of the series of hit back that NYT is paying to China. I expect more coming.