Quando na China, eu tinha de usar um VPN, ou um provedor virtual de conexão à internet, do contrário eu simplesmente não conseguiria acessar decentemente sites e blogs fora da China, ou então me conectar a redes sociais. Seria impossível, simplesmente. E sem VPN, praticamente 70% dos clicks para acessar sites absolutamente inocentes, que não tinham nada a ver com direitos humanos, Tibete, ou qualquer outro tema sensível aos olhos do Big Brother, resultavam em redirecionamento para o Baidu, o que passa pelo Google chinês.
Claro, eu dispunha de 60 dólares para assinar um serviço estrangeiro de VPN, o que está fora do alcance da quase totalidade dos chineses.
O Big Brother continua eficiente, até o dia em que a coisa explode...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
China Tightens Censorship of Electronic Communications
By SHARON LaFRANIERE and DAVID BARBOZA
The New York Times, March 21, 2011
Editors' Note Appended
BEIJING — If anyone wonders whether the Chinese government has tightened its grip on electronic communications since protests began engulfing the Arab world, Shakespeare may prove instructive.
A Beijing entrepreneur, discussing restaurant choices with his fiancée over their cellphones last week, quoted Queen Gertrude’s response to Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The second time he said the word “protest,” her phone cut off.
He spoke English, but another caller, repeating the same phrase on Monday in Chinese over a different phone, was also cut off in midsentence.
A host of evidence over the past several weeks shows that Chinese authorities are more determined than ever to police cellphone calls, electronic messages, e-mail and access to the Internet in order to smother any hint of antigovernment sentiment. In the cat-and-mouse game that characterizes electronic communications here, analysts suggest that the cat is getting bigger, especially since revolts began to ricochet through the Middle East and North Africa, and homegrown efforts to organize protests in China began to circulate on the Internet about a month ago.
“The hard-liners have won the field, and now we are seeing exactly how they want to run the place,” said Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing analyst of China’s leadership. “I think the gloves are coming off.”
On Sunday, Google accused the Chinese government of disrupting its Gmail service in the country and making it appear as if technical problems at Google — not government intervention — were to blame.
Several popular virtual private-network services, or V.P.N.’s, designed to evade the government’s computerized censors, have been crippled. This has prompted an outcry from users as young as ninth graders with school research projects and sent them on a frustrating search for replacements that can pierce the so-called Great Firewall, a menu of direct censorship and “opinion guidance” that restricts what Internet users can read or write online. V.P.N.’s are popular with China’s huge expatriate community and Chinese entrepreneurs, researchers and scholars who expect to use the Internet freely.
In an apology to customers in China for interrupted service, WiTopia, a V.P.N. provider, cited “increased blocking attempts.” No perpetrator was identified.
Beyond these problems, anecdotal evidence suggests that the government’s computers, which intercept incoming data and compare it with an ever-changing list of banned keywords or Web sites, are shutting out more information. The motive is often obvious: For six months or more, the censors have prevented Google searches of the English word “freedom.”
But other terms or Web sites are suddenly or sporadically blocked for reasons no ordinary user can fathom. One Beijing technology consultant, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution against his company, said that for several days last week he could not visit the Web site for the Hong Kong Stock Exchange without a proxy. LinkedIn, a networking platform, was blocked for a day during the height of government concerns over Internet-based calls for protests in Chinese cities a few weeks ago, he said.
Hu Yong, a media professor at Peking University, said government censors were constantly spotting and reacting to new perceived threats. “The technology is improving and the range of sensitive terms is expanding because the depth and breadth of things they must manage just keeps on growing,” Mr. Hu said.
China’s censorship machine has been operating ever more efficiently since mid-2008, and restrictions once viewed as temporary — like bans on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter — are now considered permanent. Government-friendly alternatives have sprung and developed a following.
Few analysts believe that the government will loosen controls any time soon, with events it considers politically sensitive swamping the calendar, including a turnover in the Communist Party’s top leadership next year.
“It has been double the guard, and double the guard, and you never hear proclamations about things being relaxed,” said Duncan Clark, chairman of BDA China, an investment and strategy consultancy based in Beijing, and a 17-year resident of China. “We have never seen this level of control in the time I have been here, and I have been here since the beginning of the Internet.”
How far China will clamp down on electronic communications is unclear. “There’s a lot more they can do, but they’ve been holding back,” said Bill Bishop, a Internet expert based in Beijing. Some analysts suggest that officials are exploring just how much inconvenience the Chinese are willing to tolerate. While sentiment is hard to gauge, a certain segment of society rejects censorship.
For many users, an inoperable V.P.N. is an inconvenience, not a crisis. But Internet consultants said interfering with an e-mail service on which people depend every day is more serious. “How people respond is going to be more intense, more visceral,” one consultant said.
Google began receiving complaints from Gmail users and its own employees in China about a month ago, around the time anonymous Internet posts urged people unhappy with the government to gather every Sunday. Some Gmail users found their service disconnected when they tried to send or save messages.
Engineers determined that there were no technical difficulties on Google’s end, Google said; rather, the hand of the Chinese government was at work. China’s Foreign Ministry did not respond Monday to calls or faxed questions about Google’s statement.
Disrupting Web sites and Internet connections is a standard tactic in dealing with companies that fall out of government favor. Mark Seiden, an Internet consultant, said Chinese officials typically left the companies and users to guess the reason.
In the Google case, an article on the Web site of People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official publication, offered a strong hint. The March 4 article, attributed to a netizen, called Google a tool of the United States government. Like Facebook and Twitter, the article said, Google has “played a role in manufacturing social disorder” and sought to involve itself in other nations’ politics.
China has treated Google as a threat for some time. Last year, Google closed its search service and redirected Chinese users to Google’s Hong Kong site after the company said China was behind a cyberattack aimed partly at Gmail accounts.
Mr. Moses, the Beijing analyst, said the latest moves further expand government control of electronic communications. “The model for this government is that every day is a new challenge and a new opportunity to show the strength of the state here,” he said. “There is clear confidence in the capability of the political authorities to maintain order.”
Jonathan Ansfield contributed reporting from Beijing, and Claire Cain Miller from San Francisco. Jonathan Kaiman and Li Bibo contributed research from Beijing.
Editors' Note: March 26, 2011
An article on Tuesday about Chinese censorship of digital communications began with a description of two interrupted cellphone calls, which were cited as possible examples of “a host of evidence over the past several weeks” that the authorities were increasing their efforts out of concern that antigovernment sentiment might spread from Arab countries. In one call, a Beijing entrepreneur lost his cellphone connection after he used the English word “protest” twice. In the second, a call was lost after the speaker twice used the Chinese term for protest.
The article did not point out that in both cases, the recipients of the calls were in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. Because scrutiny of press communications could easily be higher than for those of the public at large, the calls could not be assumed to represent a broader trend; therefore, those examples should not have been given such prominence in the article.
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Showing posts with label censorship. Show all posts
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Friday, October 8, 2010
Big Brother vs CNN: seria patetico, se nao fosse ridiculo...
Todo mundo, ou quase, sabe que o Comitê Nobel atribui o prêmio 2010 da Paz ao ativista chinês pelos direitos humanos e pela democracia Liu Xiaobo.
Na China, ainda falta avisar alguns milhões, talvez algumas centenas de milhões.
Claro, todo mundo conectado de alguma forma com o mundo já sabe, menos os milhões de chineses que não dispõem de meios de informação independentes do governo.
Este, de modo absolutamente patético, está tentando impedir os chineses comuns de tomar conhecimento dessa notícia. Os meios oficiais fazem silêncio absoluto sobre o assunto.
Mas o Big Brother chinês também atua de modo absolutamente ridículo ao tentar impedir o acesso a essa informação objetiva pelos canais independentes, estrangeiros.
A CNN, por exemplo, acaba de ficar mais de 2 minutos fora do ar, por causa disso mesmo.
Entretanto, os burocratas e os censores do Great China Firewall foram particularmente vagarosos, e distraídos, neste caso: eles cortaram o sinal depois que a "âncora" da CNN já tinha começado a dar a notícia, inclusive de que o governo chinês estava bloqueando a infor.... (tela apagada).
Dois minutos depois, ou quase, a CNN retoma, desta vez anunciando a renúncia do Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional do presidente Obama, general Jones. Enfim a vida continua.
Esses censores precisam ser mais eficientes, não podem dormir no ponto, afinal de contas eles são pagos para isso.
Já foram mais eficientes de outras vezes...
No dia 1 de junho, por exemplo, eu estava assistindo a um especial na CNN sobre os 30 anos do início das emissões, a partir de Atlanta, daquela rede que se pretendia mundial e que era chamada depreciativamente de "Chicken Noodles Network".
A CNN fazia então um retrospecto das grandes reportagens de seus 30 anos desde 1980, focando a partir de seus arquivos os eventos mundiais de maior impacto no período: desastre da Space Shuttle, guerra Irã-Iraque, catástrofes, tragédias, de repente, isso mesmo: tela preta, chuvisco, ausência de sinal, por alguns segundos, 20 ou 30, depois retomada: invasão do Kwait pelo exército de Saddam Hussein, primeira guerra do golfo, etc, etc, etc.
Curioso, escrevi para correspondentes no Brasil e em outros países, para saber o que eu (e alguns milhões de residentes na China conectados na CNN) tinha perdido: justamente o que eu tinha deduzido imediatamente: o massacre da praça Tian An-Men, ironicamente chamada de Paz Celestial. Sim, também teve a queda do muro de Berlim, enfim, essas coisas incômodas do ponto de vista do Big Brother.
Se alguém perguntar, digamos o próprio escritório da CNN em Beijing, o governo chinês dirá, com a cara mais hipócrita do mundo, que foi um "problema técnico", alguma dificuldade qualquer com a transmissão do sinal, mas que a interrupção tinha sido prontamente resolvida por seus "técnicos".
Acredito que esses técnicos tenham de aumentar o tempo da decalagem entre o sinal da CNN e sua retransmissão na China, digamos para mais de um minuto, para dar tempo de cortar o sinal antes que a notícia entre nos aparelhos, como ocorreu agora, quando pelo menos ficamos sabendo que um chinês havia ganho o Premio Nobel da Paz, e que esse chinês estava preso, por ser um "dissiden..." (...).
Ou eles estavam dormindo, ou comendo miojo, pois se atrasaram vergonhosamente.
Não se pode ser um Big Brother eficiente dessa maneira; desse modo, alguém vai ter de escrever uma nova versão de "1984", criando a figura de um Big Brother trapalhão, distraído, lento, atrasado, ineficiente...
Enfim, acho tudo isso ridículo, pois só contribui para a causa que o governo do Big Brother quer evitar, mas acredito que a burrice seja própria das ditaduras...
Finalmente, sou contra essa caracterização de Liu Xiaobo como "dissidente".
Dissidente do que? De nada, obviamente.
Quem é dissidente é o governo chinês: da democracia, dos direitos humanos, dos princípios mais elementares da transparência e do livre acesso à informação...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
(Shanghai, 8 de Outubro de 2010)
PS: A cena patética, ou ridícula, se repete: assim que os "titulares" da notícia foram novamente anunciados na CNN, as 23hs locais, inclusive de que o governo chinês tinha ficado bravo com a atribuição do Prêmio Nobel da Paz a Liu Xiabo, o sinal voltou a ser cortado. Assim será pelos próximos dias, cada vez que a matéria for abordada pela CNN (e pela BBC e outros canais, que vou continuar tentando).
Enfim, recomendo muito café e estimulantes aos rapazes do Great Firewal: eles vão ter de trabalhar muito nos próximos dias, e sobretudo ficar mais atentos, do contrário vão acabar tomando uma "censura" do censor-mor...
Na China, ainda falta avisar alguns milhões, talvez algumas centenas de milhões.
Claro, todo mundo conectado de alguma forma com o mundo já sabe, menos os milhões de chineses que não dispõem de meios de informação independentes do governo.
Este, de modo absolutamente patético, está tentando impedir os chineses comuns de tomar conhecimento dessa notícia. Os meios oficiais fazem silêncio absoluto sobre o assunto.
Mas o Big Brother chinês também atua de modo absolutamente ridículo ao tentar impedir o acesso a essa informação objetiva pelos canais independentes, estrangeiros.
A CNN, por exemplo, acaba de ficar mais de 2 minutos fora do ar, por causa disso mesmo.
Entretanto, os burocratas e os censores do Great China Firewall foram particularmente vagarosos, e distraídos, neste caso: eles cortaram o sinal depois que a "âncora" da CNN já tinha começado a dar a notícia, inclusive de que o governo chinês estava bloqueando a infor.... (tela apagada).
Dois minutos depois, ou quase, a CNN retoma, desta vez anunciando a renúncia do Conselheiro de Segurança Nacional do presidente Obama, general Jones. Enfim a vida continua.
Esses censores precisam ser mais eficientes, não podem dormir no ponto, afinal de contas eles são pagos para isso.
Já foram mais eficientes de outras vezes...
No dia 1 de junho, por exemplo, eu estava assistindo a um especial na CNN sobre os 30 anos do início das emissões, a partir de Atlanta, daquela rede que se pretendia mundial e que era chamada depreciativamente de "Chicken Noodles Network".
A CNN fazia então um retrospecto das grandes reportagens de seus 30 anos desde 1980, focando a partir de seus arquivos os eventos mundiais de maior impacto no período: desastre da Space Shuttle, guerra Irã-Iraque, catástrofes, tragédias, de repente, isso mesmo: tela preta, chuvisco, ausência de sinal, por alguns segundos, 20 ou 30, depois retomada: invasão do Kwait pelo exército de Saddam Hussein, primeira guerra do golfo, etc, etc, etc.
Curioso, escrevi para correspondentes no Brasil e em outros países, para saber o que eu (e alguns milhões de residentes na China conectados na CNN) tinha perdido: justamente o que eu tinha deduzido imediatamente: o massacre da praça Tian An-Men, ironicamente chamada de Paz Celestial. Sim, também teve a queda do muro de Berlim, enfim, essas coisas incômodas do ponto de vista do Big Brother.
Se alguém perguntar, digamos o próprio escritório da CNN em Beijing, o governo chinês dirá, com a cara mais hipócrita do mundo, que foi um "problema técnico", alguma dificuldade qualquer com a transmissão do sinal, mas que a interrupção tinha sido prontamente resolvida por seus "técnicos".
Acredito que esses técnicos tenham de aumentar o tempo da decalagem entre o sinal da CNN e sua retransmissão na China, digamos para mais de um minuto, para dar tempo de cortar o sinal antes que a notícia entre nos aparelhos, como ocorreu agora, quando pelo menos ficamos sabendo que um chinês havia ganho o Premio Nobel da Paz, e que esse chinês estava preso, por ser um "dissiden..." (...).
Ou eles estavam dormindo, ou comendo miojo, pois se atrasaram vergonhosamente.
Não se pode ser um Big Brother eficiente dessa maneira; desse modo, alguém vai ter de escrever uma nova versão de "1984", criando a figura de um Big Brother trapalhão, distraído, lento, atrasado, ineficiente...
Enfim, acho tudo isso ridículo, pois só contribui para a causa que o governo do Big Brother quer evitar, mas acredito que a burrice seja própria das ditaduras...
Finalmente, sou contra essa caracterização de Liu Xiaobo como "dissidente".
Dissidente do que? De nada, obviamente.
Quem é dissidente é o governo chinês: da democracia, dos direitos humanos, dos princípios mais elementares da transparência e do livre acesso à informação...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
(Shanghai, 8 de Outubro de 2010)
PS: A cena patética, ou ridícula, se repete: assim que os "titulares" da notícia foram novamente anunciados na CNN, as 23hs locais, inclusive de que o governo chinês tinha ficado bravo com a atribuição do Prêmio Nobel da Paz a Liu Xiabo, o sinal voltou a ser cortado. Assim será pelos próximos dias, cada vez que a matéria for abordada pela CNN (e pela BBC e outros canais, que vou continuar tentando).
Enfim, recomendo muito café e estimulantes aos rapazes do Great Firewal: eles vão ter de trabalhar muito nos próximos dias, e sobretudo ficar mais atentos, do contrário vão acabar tomando uma "censura" do censor-mor...
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Google vs China: stalemate continues...
Google applies to keep Chinese license, but censorship stalemate remains
By Ellen Nakashima and Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Google's move Tuesday to assuage China by severing a direct Internet link to an uncensored companion search site in Hong Kong could buy the company a reprieve from losing its operating license, but in the long run, Chinese officials will not tolerate efforts to expand Internet freedom if that threatens the regime, analysts said.
"At the end of the day, they'll do what they have to do to stay in power," said James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If that means smite Google, they'll do it."
Google submitted a license-renewal application Tuesday spelling out its intention to redirect Chinese users from Google.cn to a page with Google's Hong Kong address, which users can click on. That site is uncensored, and China has made it clear that it is unacceptable.
Google began redirecting users to the Hong Kong site in March after it announced it would no longer abide by China's censorship rules. At the time, the Internet giant said it had been subjected to sophisticated and repeated cyberattacks launched from China, aimed at hacking the e-mail accounts of human rights activists.
It is not clear when China will decide whether to renew the license, but at least in the short run, Lewis said, it is not in Beijing officials' interest to offend Washington by rebuffing Google. With Chinese President Hu Jintao coming to Washington in November to meet with President Obama, Lewis said, "the last thing they want is a big fight."
China is facing increasing pressure from Web-savvy citizens, or "netizens," to allow a free Internet. But the government's distrust of dissidents and distaste for open political speech have led it to insist on censorship, despite the dampening effect on innovation and scientific development.
Rao Yi, dean of life sciences at Peking University, said he thinks China will not shut down Google Scholar, a search engine for academic articles. "There would be no replacement," Rao said. Such a move would be "extremely stupid," he said.
But Cong Cao, a senior research associate at the State University of New York's Levin Institute, said: "Political stability always takes priority. Everything else is secondary."
Google had expressed the hope that by redirecting Chinese users to Hong Kong it could abide by Chinese law and keep its toehold in the lucrative mainland market while still making good on its pledge to no longer practice self-censorship at Beijing's behest. But company officials said it had become clear that if they continued with the practice, the license would not be renewed.
ad_icon
Without an Internet content provider license, "we can't operate a commercial website like Google.cn -- so Google would effectively go dark in China," David Drummond, Google's senior vice president for corporate development and chief legal officer, wrote on the company's official blog. "That's a prospect dreaded by many of our Chinese users, who have been vocal about their desire to keep Google.cn alive."
"We obviously hope that is not the outcome," said a Google official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "But we've been very clear on our commitment not to self-censor."
Rebecca MacKinnon, a visiting fellow at the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy, said China has several options, including to renew the license but block Google's Hong Kong site, forcing users to find ways around the firewall. In a "worst-case scenario," she said, it could withhold the license and also block the Hong Kong site, making it very difficult for users to access it without special tools.
Rao criticized Google for acceding to China's demands that it censor results when it first entered the country in 2006.
"Google should never have backed off in the first place," he said.
Richburg reported from Beijing.
FILE - In April 12, 2006, Chinese poke their heads through a Google logo shortly after Google debuts its Chinese Language brand name in the Beijing Hotel in Beijing. Google Inc. said Tuesday, June 29, 2010, it will stop automatically rerouting users of its China search site to its Hong Kong site after Beijing said the company would lose its mainland Internet license if the tactic continued.
By Ellen Nakashima and Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Google's move Tuesday to assuage China by severing a direct Internet link to an uncensored companion search site in Hong Kong could buy the company a reprieve from losing its operating license, but in the long run, Chinese officials will not tolerate efforts to expand Internet freedom if that threatens the regime, analysts said.
"At the end of the day, they'll do what they have to do to stay in power," said James A. Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If that means smite Google, they'll do it."
Google submitted a license-renewal application Tuesday spelling out its intention to redirect Chinese users from Google.cn to a page with Google's Hong Kong address, which users can click on. That site is uncensored, and China has made it clear that it is unacceptable.
Google began redirecting users to the Hong Kong site in March after it announced it would no longer abide by China's censorship rules. At the time, the Internet giant said it had been subjected to sophisticated and repeated cyberattacks launched from China, aimed at hacking the e-mail accounts of human rights activists.
It is not clear when China will decide whether to renew the license, but at least in the short run, Lewis said, it is not in Beijing officials' interest to offend Washington by rebuffing Google. With Chinese President Hu Jintao coming to Washington in November to meet with President Obama, Lewis said, "the last thing they want is a big fight."
China is facing increasing pressure from Web-savvy citizens, or "netizens," to allow a free Internet. But the government's distrust of dissidents and distaste for open political speech have led it to insist on censorship, despite the dampening effect on innovation and scientific development.
Rao Yi, dean of life sciences at Peking University, said he thinks China will not shut down Google Scholar, a search engine for academic articles. "There would be no replacement," Rao said. Such a move would be "extremely stupid," he said.
But Cong Cao, a senior research associate at the State University of New York's Levin Institute, said: "Political stability always takes priority. Everything else is secondary."
Google had expressed the hope that by redirecting Chinese users to Hong Kong it could abide by Chinese law and keep its toehold in the lucrative mainland market while still making good on its pledge to no longer practice self-censorship at Beijing's behest. But company officials said it had become clear that if they continued with the practice, the license would not be renewed.
ad_icon
Without an Internet content provider license, "we can't operate a commercial website like Google.cn -- so Google would effectively go dark in China," David Drummond, Google's senior vice president for corporate development and chief legal officer, wrote on the company's official blog. "That's a prospect dreaded by many of our Chinese users, who have been vocal about their desire to keep Google.cn alive."
"We obviously hope that is not the outcome," said a Google official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "But we've been very clear on our commitment not to self-censor."
Rebecca MacKinnon, a visiting fellow at the Princeton University Center for Information Technology Policy, said China has several options, including to renew the license but block Google's Hong Kong site, forcing users to find ways around the firewall. In a "worst-case scenario," she said, it could withhold the license and also block the Hong Kong site, making it very difficult for users to access it without special tools.
Rao criticized Google for acceding to China's demands that it censor results when it first entered the country in 2006.
"Google should never have backed off in the first place," he said.
Richburg reported from Beijing.
FILE - In April 12, 2006, Chinese poke their heads through a Google logo shortly after Google debuts its Chinese Language brand name in the Beijing Hotel in Beijing. Google Inc. said Tuesday, June 29, 2010, it will stop automatically rerouting users of its China search site to its Hong Kong site after Beijing said the company would lose its mainland Internet license if the tactic continued.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
De volta ao enfrentamento Google vs China - Rodrigo Constantino
Google versus China
Rodrigo Constantino
26 de março de 2010
“Aqueles que abandonariam a liberdade essencial para comprar um pouco de segurança temporária não merecem nem liberdade nem segurança.” (Benjamin Franklin)
Nas últimas décadas, centenas de milhões de chineses saíram da miséria. O crescimento econômico tem sido espetacular. Muitas pessoas ficaram encantadas com o “modelo chinês”. Faz-se necessário, portanto, elucidar alguns pontos importantes, separar o joio do trigo quando se trata de China. Há muito joio ainda no meio dos trigos e, para piorar, algumas pessoas creditam justamente o que há de podre pelo “sucesso” chinês.
De forma bastante reduzida, a China entrou numa era de mais prosperidade (ou menos miséria) quando Deng Xiaoping abandonou parte das receitas socialistas de antes, alegando que o importante não era a cor do gato, mas sim que ele pegasse o rato. Este pragmatismo fez com que o poder central fosse relativamente reduzido em prol de mais liberdade econômica, ainda que muito pouca no geral. Mas bastou esta mudança para colocar em ritmo acelerado a máquina de exportações chinesa, calcada na mão-de-obra barata. A China entrou para a OMC em 2001, e aproveitou a onda da globalização como poucos. A parcela das exportações no PIB chinês quase dobrou em poucos anos, saindo de 20% em 2001 para 36% em 2007.
Dito de outra forma, a China vem experimentando a sua tardia “revolução industrial”, com forte foco mercantilista. Seu objetivo tem sido “conquistar” o mundo por meio das exportações baratas, graças ao gigantesco contingente de trabalhadores. Algo como 750 milhões de chineses ainda vivem nas pobres zonas rurais, em condições precárias. Os ganhos de produtividade com a migração desses trabalhadores para a indústria permitem a manutenção da competitividade chinesa mundo afora, especialmente em produtos intensivos em mão-de-obra. A simbiose tem sido interessante para todos, já que os produtos baratos chineses seguram os índices de preços finais aos consumidores nos países desenvolvidos.
Mas este modelo apresenta inúmeras falhas, que podem expor seus pilares insustentáveis com o tempo. O câmbio não é livre na China, sendo artificialmente controlado pelo governo para permanecer desvalorizado. O crescimento da base monetária tem criado pressões inflacionárias cada vez maiores. O crédito é controlado basicamente por quatro bancos estatais, com critérios políticos em seus empréstimos. O foco excessivo no crescimento do PIB tem feito com que governantes locais estimulem investimentos claramente ruins, apenas para apresentar bons números agregados. Até algumas cidades “fantasmas” já existem na China, com novas casas construídas, mas nenhum morador. O meio-ambiente acaba totalmente ignorado, e as cidades mais poluídas do mundo se encontram na China. A dependência dos consumidores de países mais ricos coloca a China numa situação frágil caso não haja crescimento mundial nos próximos anos. O risco protecionista é uma espada de Dâmocles para o mercantilismo chinês.
Esses são apenas alguns problemas e riscos para a China na próxima década. Há outro ponto que jamais deveria ser ignorado por todos aqueles que valorizam a liberdade: a China ainda vive sob uma ditadura. É verdade que o crescimento exponencial da classe média coloca pressão por mais liberdade civil no país, mas a reação do governo é igualmente forte. O PCC não pretende largar o osso facilmente. O massacre na Praça da Paz Celestial, em 1989, ainda arde na memória de muitos. Ninguém sabe até onde o governo estaria disposto a ir atualmente para preservar seu poder, mas o medo continua dominando muitas pessoas. E é nesse contexto que a “anárquica” internet precisa ser controlada.
Governo algum gosta da ampla liberdade de expressão e imprensa. As críticas, a exposição de fatos incômodos, a disseminação de mais conhecimento e informação, tudo isso representa uma ameaça aos governantes. A internet é a mais nova e potente arma em prol da liberdade e, por isso, governantes do mundo todo pensam numa forma de controlá-la. Claro que esta tarefa fica muito mais fácil sob uma ditadura. Em Cuba, a internet é item de luxo para poucos, além de corajosos clandestinos que se arriscam para mostrar a realidade da ilha presídio. Na Venezuela, o caudilho Hugo Chávez já declarou que pretende controlar a internet. Na China não seria diferente. Acontece que a tirania chinesa encontrou um obstáculo: a ética do maior site de pesquisas do mundo.
O debate sobre o que fazer em relação à presença na China tem dominado a agenda dos principais executivos da Google, desde que o governo intensificou a censura na internet. Sergey Brin, o bilionário fundador da empresa, com apenas 36 anos, resolveu comprar uma briga com o regime autoritário chinês. Seus pais tiveram que fugir com ele da União Soviética, justamente por não suportarem mais viver sob uma ditadura comunista. Seu pai valoriza a liberdade de buscar seus “próprios sonhos de empreendimento”, segundo Brin. O Google representa uma fantástica ferramenta no auxílio de milhões de pessoas buscando justamente isso. É uma estupenda conquista do empreendedorismo, do livre mercado.
Para todos aqueles que insistem em repetir o mantra marxista de que o poder está no capital, o caso da guerra entre Google e governo chinês é sintomático. O Google é uma empresa com cerca de US$ 180 bilhões de valor de mercado. Entretanto, parece impotente diante do poder do governo chinês. É a luta entre Davi e Golias. Na Rússia, o mais rico dos oligarcas foi esmagado em poucas semanas pelo Kremlin de Putin, quando se mostrou interessado pela política do país. Quando o governo concentra tanto poder assim, qualquer empresário é um simples refém seu.
Sergey Brin disse que espera a liberalização da internet na China como solução de longo prazo para o impasse. Todos aqueles que valorizam a liberdade torcem pelo mesmo resultado. Mas o realismo nos faz crer que a luta será árdua, desigual, e que o governo chinês conta com ampla vantagem no momento. Preservar a liberdade é uma tarefa hercúlea neste mundo repleto de autoritarismo. Mas é uma luta que compensa. Não desejamos mártires que sacrifiquem tudo por este ideal. Só que não deixa de ser estimulante ver uma empresa deste porte disposta a sacrificar uma fortuna em receitas, por compreender que ultrapassaram seu “limite de conforto”. Na batalha entre Google e governo chinês, entre capital e governo, entre empreendedor e parasita, entre liberdade e tirania, não resta a menor sombra de dúvida de qual partido tomar.
Rodrigo Constantino
26 de março de 2010
“Aqueles que abandonariam a liberdade essencial para comprar um pouco de segurança temporária não merecem nem liberdade nem segurança.” (Benjamin Franklin)
Nas últimas décadas, centenas de milhões de chineses saíram da miséria. O crescimento econômico tem sido espetacular. Muitas pessoas ficaram encantadas com o “modelo chinês”. Faz-se necessário, portanto, elucidar alguns pontos importantes, separar o joio do trigo quando se trata de China. Há muito joio ainda no meio dos trigos e, para piorar, algumas pessoas creditam justamente o que há de podre pelo “sucesso” chinês.
De forma bastante reduzida, a China entrou numa era de mais prosperidade (ou menos miséria) quando Deng Xiaoping abandonou parte das receitas socialistas de antes, alegando que o importante não era a cor do gato, mas sim que ele pegasse o rato. Este pragmatismo fez com que o poder central fosse relativamente reduzido em prol de mais liberdade econômica, ainda que muito pouca no geral. Mas bastou esta mudança para colocar em ritmo acelerado a máquina de exportações chinesa, calcada na mão-de-obra barata. A China entrou para a OMC em 2001, e aproveitou a onda da globalização como poucos. A parcela das exportações no PIB chinês quase dobrou em poucos anos, saindo de 20% em 2001 para 36% em 2007.
Dito de outra forma, a China vem experimentando a sua tardia “revolução industrial”, com forte foco mercantilista. Seu objetivo tem sido “conquistar” o mundo por meio das exportações baratas, graças ao gigantesco contingente de trabalhadores. Algo como 750 milhões de chineses ainda vivem nas pobres zonas rurais, em condições precárias. Os ganhos de produtividade com a migração desses trabalhadores para a indústria permitem a manutenção da competitividade chinesa mundo afora, especialmente em produtos intensivos em mão-de-obra. A simbiose tem sido interessante para todos, já que os produtos baratos chineses seguram os índices de preços finais aos consumidores nos países desenvolvidos.
Mas este modelo apresenta inúmeras falhas, que podem expor seus pilares insustentáveis com o tempo. O câmbio não é livre na China, sendo artificialmente controlado pelo governo para permanecer desvalorizado. O crescimento da base monetária tem criado pressões inflacionárias cada vez maiores. O crédito é controlado basicamente por quatro bancos estatais, com critérios políticos em seus empréstimos. O foco excessivo no crescimento do PIB tem feito com que governantes locais estimulem investimentos claramente ruins, apenas para apresentar bons números agregados. Até algumas cidades “fantasmas” já existem na China, com novas casas construídas, mas nenhum morador. O meio-ambiente acaba totalmente ignorado, e as cidades mais poluídas do mundo se encontram na China. A dependência dos consumidores de países mais ricos coloca a China numa situação frágil caso não haja crescimento mundial nos próximos anos. O risco protecionista é uma espada de Dâmocles para o mercantilismo chinês.
Esses são apenas alguns problemas e riscos para a China na próxima década. Há outro ponto que jamais deveria ser ignorado por todos aqueles que valorizam a liberdade: a China ainda vive sob uma ditadura. É verdade que o crescimento exponencial da classe média coloca pressão por mais liberdade civil no país, mas a reação do governo é igualmente forte. O PCC não pretende largar o osso facilmente. O massacre na Praça da Paz Celestial, em 1989, ainda arde na memória de muitos. Ninguém sabe até onde o governo estaria disposto a ir atualmente para preservar seu poder, mas o medo continua dominando muitas pessoas. E é nesse contexto que a “anárquica” internet precisa ser controlada.
Governo algum gosta da ampla liberdade de expressão e imprensa. As críticas, a exposição de fatos incômodos, a disseminação de mais conhecimento e informação, tudo isso representa uma ameaça aos governantes. A internet é a mais nova e potente arma em prol da liberdade e, por isso, governantes do mundo todo pensam numa forma de controlá-la. Claro que esta tarefa fica muito mais fácil sob uma ditadura. Em Cuba, a internet é item de luxo para poucos, além de corajosos clandestinos que se arriscam para mostrar a realidade da ilha presídio. Na Venezuela, o caudilho Hugo Chávez já declarou que pretende controlar a internet. Na China não seria diferente. Acontece que a tirania chinesa encontrou um obstáculo: a ética do maior site de pesquisas do mundo.
O debate sobre o que fazer em relação à presença na China tem dominado a agenda dos principais executivos da Google, desde que o governo intensificou a censura na internet. Sergey Brin, o bilionário fundador da empresa, com apenas 36 anos, resolveu comprar uma briga com o regime autoritário chinês. Seus pais tiveram que fugir com ele da União Soviética, justamente por não suportarem mais viver sob uma ditadura comunista. Seu pai valoriza a liberdade de buscar seus “próprios sonhos de empreendimento”, segundo Brin. O Google representa uma fantástica ferramenta no auxílio de milhões de pessoas buscando justamente isso. É uma estupenda conquista do empreendedorismo, do livre mercado.
Para todos aqueles que insistem em repetir o mantra marxista de que o poder está no capital, o caso da guerra entre Google e governo chinês é sintomático. O Google é uma empresa com cerca de US$ 180 bilhões de valor de mercado. Entretanto, parece impotente diante do poder do governo chinês. É a luta entre Davi e Golias. Na Rússia, o mais rico dos oligarcas foi esmagado em poucas semanas pelo Kremlin de Putin, quando se mostrou interessado pela política do país. Quando o governo concentra tanto poder assim, qualquer empresário é um simples refém seu.
Sergey Brin disse que espera a liberalização da internet na China como solução de longo prazo para o impasse. Todos aqueles que valorizam a liberdade torcem pelo mesmo resultado. Mas o realismo nos faz crer que a luta será árdua, desigual, e que o governo chinês conta com ampla vantagem no momento. Preservar a liberdade é uma tarefa hercúlea neste mundo repleto de autoritarismo. Mas é uma luta que compensa. Não desejamos mártires que sacrifiquem tudo por este ideal. Só que não deixa de ser estimulante ver uma empresa deste porte disposta a sacrificar uma fortuna em receitas, por compreender que ultrapassaram seu “limite de conforto”. Na batalha entre Google e governo chinês, entre capital e governo, entre empreendedor e parasita, entre liberdade e tirania, não resta a menor sombra de dúvida de qual partido tomar.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
417) China aprova lei de controle da internet
China aprova lei que obriga empresas de comunicações a delatar usuários
Cláudia Trevisan
O Estado de S.Paulo, 01 de maio de 2010
A China aprovou ontem uma lei que obriga provedores de internet e de serviços de telecomunicações a colaborarem com a polícia e autoridades em investigações relativas a vazamento de "segredos de Estado" ? conceito vago o bastante para incluir qualquer atividade que Pequim considere suspeita.
As novas regras obrigam as empresas de telecomunicações a interromper a transmissão de possíveis segredos de Estado e comunicar às autoridades potenciais delitos. Elas também devem manter registros de ligações e deletar informações por determinação do governo.
As mudanças fazem parte de uma emenda à lei sobre segredos de Estado aprovada pelo Comitê Permanente do Congresso Nacional do Povo, encarregado de legislar, já que o Parlamento se reúne só uma vez por ano.
Segundo o governo, o objetivo da emenda é reduzir a abrangência do que pode ser considerado segredo de Estado. Mas mesmo com a mudança, o conceito continua vago, incluindo "informação que, se divulgada, pode prejudicar os interesses do Estado nas áreas de política, economia e segurança nacional".
A emenda, que entra em vigor em 1.º de outubro, reduz o número de órgãos governamentais com poder para classificar informações como sigilosas e tenta padronizar o procedimento. Segundo a imprensa oficial chinesa, várias autoridades em todo o país recusam-se a prover informações ao público com o argumento de que se trata de "segredo de Estado".
A nova legislação, porém, deve dificultar ainda mais a atuação de empresas de internet estrangeiras no país, dois meses depois de o Google transferir seu site em chinês para Hong Kong por causa dos excessos de controles e da censura.
O Yahoo enfrentou um desastre de relações públicas em 2005, quando o jornalista chinês Shi Tao, usuário de seu serviço de e-mail, foi condenado a dez anos de prisão sob a acusação de divulgar segredos de Estado.
Shi usou sua conta do Yahoo para enviar a um amigo em Nova York documento do Departamento de Propaganda do governo enviado ao jornal em que trabalhava com orientações sobre os riscos relacionados à cobertura dos 15 anos do massacre da Praça da Paz Celestial, ocorrido em 1989.
O Google decidiu sair da China antes de se ver envolvido em um caso semelhante ao do Yahoo. Quando anunciou que poderia tomar esse caminho, em janeiro, a empresa afirmou que várias contas de seu provedor de e-mails, Gmail, tinham sido alvo de hackers chineses.
Cláudia Trevisan
O Estado de S.Paulo, 01 de maio de 2010
A China aprovou ontem uma lei que obriga provedores de internet e de serviços de telecomunicações a colaborarem com a polícia e autoridades em investigações relativas a vazamento de "segredos de Estado" ? conceito vago o bastante para incluir qualquer atividade que Pequim considere suspeita.
As novas regras obrigam as empresas de telecomunicações a interromper a transmissão de possíveis segredos de Estado e comunicar às autoridades potenciais delitos. Elas também devem manter registros de ligações e deletar informações por determinação do governo.
As mudanças fazem parte de uma emenda à lei sobre segredos de Estado aprovada pelo Comitê Permanente do Congresso Nacional do Povo, encarregado de legislar, já que o Parlamento se reúne só uma vez por ano.
Segundo o governo, o objetivo da emenda é reduzir a abrangência do que pode ser considerado segredo de Estado. Mas mesmo com a mudança, o conceito continua vago, incluindo "informação que, se divulgada, pode prejudicar os interesses do Estado nas áreas de política, economia e segurança nacional".
A emenda, que entra em vigor em 1.º de outubro, reduz o número de órgãos governamentais com poder para classificar informações como sigilosas e tenta padronizar o procedimento. Segundo a imprensa oficial chinesa, várias autoridades em todo o país recusam-se a prover informações ao público com o argumento de que se trata de "segredo de Estado".
A nova legislação, porém, deve dificultar ainda mais a atuação de empresas de internet estrangeiras no país, dois meses depois de o Google transferir seu site em chinês para Hong Kong por causa dos excessos de controles e da censura.
O Yahoo enfrentou um desastre de relações públicas em 2005, quando o jornalista chinês Shi Tao, usuário de seu serviço de e-mail, foi condenado a dez anos de prisão sob a acusação de divulgar segredos de Estado.
Shi usou sua conta do Yahoo para enviar a um amigo em Nova York documento do Departamento de Propaganda do governo enviado ao jornal em que trabalhava com orientações sobre os riscos relacionados à cobertura dos 15 anos do massacre da Praça da Paz Celestial, ocorrido em 1989.
O Google decidiu sair da China antes de se ver envolvido em um caso semelhante ao do Yahoo. Quando anunciou que poderia tomar esse caminho, em janeiro, a empresa afirmou que várias contas de seu provedor de e-mails, Gmail, tinham sido alvo de hackers chineses.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
377) Bob Dylan proibido na China
MR. ZIMMERMAN E A CIVILIZAÇÃO OCIDENTAL
Reinaldo Azevedo, 7.04.2010
Bob Dylan iria cantar na China, mas a burocracia comunista disse “não”. O velho militante velho dos direitos civis, o crítico do establishment, o cronista lírico-pop do mal-estar da nossa civilização, o pacifista de várias gerações pôde perceber, enfim, quanta coisa boa o sistema que adoramos detestar do lado de cá nos fornece. E o maior de todos os bens é, vocês sabem, a liberdade.
Os direitos humanos são uma invenção da civilização judaico-cristã — e os simplórios estudem um pouco antes de virem me falar dos cortadores de cabeça da Revolução Francesa. Os direitos civis são uma invenção da cultura ocidental e se tornaram uma questão inegociável na chamada “democracia burguesa”. Foi o capital, meus queridos, que financiou o humanismo, entendem? Que garantiu aquela bobagenzinha que nos mantém de pé: a igualdade perante a lei.
“Direitos humanos” na China, aquele país que o governo Lula admira tanto? Para quê? Eles são caudatários do homem coletivo. E consideram a crítica desnecessária — como o fazem os irmãos Castro — porque, afinal, o “novo homem” já chegou ao poder.
E um dirigente chinês não teria dificuldade nenhuma em provar que há, sim, “direitos humanos” na China, só que a compreensão, por lá, leva em conta outras variáveis, que nada têm a ver com o “egoísmo” dos ocidentais. Para eles, o regime de força é só um princípio ordenador da sociedade, sem o qual a coisa degeneraria.
E a tirania se torna, então, uma forma de proteção dos cidadãos.
O Plano Nacional-Socialista dos Direitos Humanos que as esquerdas tentaram nos empurrar goela abaixo nada tem a ver com a nossa tradição de direitos. Ele é parente daquele modelo chinês. Assim como, por lá, a burocracia decide o que é e o que não é um direito humano — e, parece, ouvir Bob Dylan não é —, os nossos “chineses” queriam decidir quem é e quem não é “direito-humanisticamente” correto. E os incorretos deveriam ser punidos pelo uso indevido da sua liberdade. Como se faz na China, onde o camponês livre, o operário livre e o soldado livre não podem ouvir Mr. Zimmerman.
A resposta, lá, não está no vento porque o vento está sujeito aos controladores de ventos
Reinaldo Azevedo, 7.04.2010
Bob Dylan iria cantar na China, mas a burocracia comunista disse “não”. O velho militante velho dos direitos civis, o crítico do establishment, o cronista lírico-pop do mal-estar da nossa civilização, o pacifista de várias gerações pôde perceber, enfim, quanta coisa boa o sistema que adoramos detestar do lado de cá nos fornece. E o maior de todos os bens é, vocês sabem, a liberdade.
Os direitos humanos são uma invenção da civilização judaico-cristã — e os simplórios estudem um pouco antes de virem me falar dos cortadores de cabeça da Revolução Francesa. Os direitos civis são uma invenção da cultura ocidental e se tornaram uma questão inegociável na chamada “democracia burguesa”. Foi o capital, meus queridos, que financiou o humanismo, entendem? Que garantiu aquela bobagenzinha que nos mantém de pé: a igualdade perante a lei.
“Direitos humanos” na China, aquele país que o governo Lula admira tanto? Para quê? Eles são caudatários do homem coletivo. E consideram a crítica desnecessária — como o fazem os irmãos Castro — porque, afinal, o “novo homem” já chegou ao poder.
E um dirigente chinês não teria dificuldade nenhuma em provar que há, sim, “direitos humanos” na China, só que a compreensão, por lá, leva em conta outras variáveis, que nada têm a ver com o “egoísmo” dos ocidentais. Para eles, o regime de força é só um princípio ordenador da sociedade, sem o qual a coisa degeneraria.
E a tirania se torna, então, uma forma de proteção dos cidadãos.
O Plano Nacional-Socialista dos Direitos Humanos que as esquerdas tentaram nos empurrar goela abaixo nada tem a ver com a nossa tradição de direitos. Ele é parente daquele modelo chinês. Assim como, por lá, a burocracia decide o que é e o que não é um direito humano — e, parece, ouvir Bob Dylan não é —, os nossos “chineses” queriam decidir quem é e quem não é “direito-humanisticamente” correto. E os incorretos deveriam ser punidos pelo uso indevido da sua liberdade. Como se faz na China, onde o camponês livre, o operário livre e o soldado livre não podem ouvir Mr. Zimmerman.
A resposta, lá, não está no vento porque o vento está sujeito aos controladores de ventos
376) Censorship in the internet in China
An Internet cafe in Beijing. Some Internet cafes and schools use filtering software, and a version for cellphones is in development.
China’s Censors Tackle and Trip Over the Internet
By MICHAEL WINES, SHARON LAFRANIERE and JONATHAN ANSFIELD
This article was reported by Michael Wines, Sharon LaFraniere and Jonathan Ansfield and written by Mr. Wines.
The New York Times, April 7, 2010
BEIJING — Type the Chinese characters for “carrot” into Google’s search engine here in mainland China, and you will be rewarded not with a list of Internet links, but a blank screen.
Don’t blame Google, however. The fault lies with China’s censors — who are increasingly a model for countries around the world that want to control an unrestricted Internet.
Since late March, when Google moved its search operations out of mainland China to Hong Kong, each response to a Chinese citizen’s search request has been met at the border by government computers, programmed to censor any forbidden information Google might turn up.
“Carrot” — in Mandarin, huluobo — may seem innocuous enough. But it contains the same Chinese character as the surname of President Hu Jintao. And the computers, long programmed to intercept Chinese-language searches on the nation’s leaders, substitute an error message for the search result before it can sneak onto a mainland computer.
This is China’s censorship machine, part George Orwell, part Rube Goldberg: an information sieve of staggering breadth and fineness, yet full of holes; run by banks of advanced computers, but also by thousands of Communist Party drudges; highly sophisticated in some ways, remarkably crude in others.
The one constant is its growing importance. Censorship used to be the sleepy province of the Communist Party’s central propaganda department, whose main task was to tell editors what and what not to print or broadcast. In the new networked China, censorship is a major growth industry, overseen — and fought over — by no fewer than 14 government ministries.
“Press control has really moved to the center of the agenda,” said David Bandurski, an analyst at the China Media Project of the University of Hong Kong. “The Internet is the decisive factor there. It’s the medium that is changing the game in press control, and the party leaders know this.”
Today, China censors everything from the traditional print press to domestic and foreign Internet sites; from cellphone text messages to social networking services; from online chat rooms to blogs, films and e-mail. It even censors online games.
That’s not all. Not content merely to block dissonant views, the government increasingly employs agents to peddle its views online, in the guise of impartial bloggers and chat-room denizens. And increasingly, it is backing state-friendly clones of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, all Western sites that have been blocked here for roughly a year.
The government’s strategy, according to Mr. Bandurski and others, is not just to block unflattering messages, but to overwhelm them with its own positive spin and rebuttals.
The government makes no apologies for what it calls “guiding public opinion.” Regulation is crucial, it says, to keep China from sliding into chaos and to preserve the party’s monopoly on power.
“Whether we can cope with the Internet is a matter that affects the development of socialist culture, the security of information, and the stability of the state,” President Hu said in 2007.
In China’s view, events since then — including the online spread of the democracy manifesto known as Charter 08 and riots in the Tibet and Xinjiang regions, said to be aided by cellphone and Internet communications — have only reinforced that stance.
In the last year, censorship has increased markedly, as evidenced by the closing of thousands of blogs and Web sites in ostensible anti-pornography campaigns, and the jailing of prominent dissidents who used the Internet to spread their views. The departure of Google’s search engine in March only capped months of growing intolerance of unfettered speech.
The paradox — at least at first glance — is that even with such pervasive restraints, China’s press and Internet are capable of freewheeling discourse and social criticism.
Newspapers, blogs and online chats have unleashed national outrages over a host of topics, including food and medicine contamination and local corruption. Bloggers continually tweak the censors, leaking their orders and creating an online land of mythical creatures whose names are all homonyms for aspects of the state’s heavy hand.
Some exposés and satires fall on the acceptable side of an often invisible and shifting line that marks what can and cannot be said freely in China. On the other side are statements that too overtly challenge the Communist Party’s hold on power, that attack or embarrass powerful politicians or that tread on a long list of forbidden topics, from unrest in Tibet to political crises like the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
Journalists and Internet publishers often discover that they have crossed the line only after their online presence is blocked, their bylines are blacklisted or they are detained or summoned to “tea” with government security officers who deliver coy but unmistakable warnings.
With 384 million users in China at last count in January — and 181 million blogs — the Internet poses a true cat-herding predicament for censors. Foreign entities that operate outside China are the lesser of the censors’ problems. The reason is logistical: access to the Internet in China from the outside world is limited, and all traffic must pass through one of three large computer centers in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.
At those centers, government computers — the so-called Great Firewall — intercept inbound data and compare it with a constantly changing list of forbidden keywords and Web addresses.
When a match occurs, the computers can block the incoming data in several ways, from rejecting it outright to making more nuanced trims. For example, Chinese citizens who search Google using sensitive terms like “Tiananmen” may receive complete summaries of relevant Web sites. But if the Web sites are banned, it is impossible to link to them.
Within China, however, data cannot be choked off at a handful of gateways. So the government employs a toolbox of controls, including persuasion, co-opting and force, to keep the Web in line. Self-censorship is the first line of filtering and an obligation of all network and site operators in China.
China’s big homegrown sites, like Baidu, Sina.com and Sohu, employ throngs of so-called Web administrators to screen their search engines, chat rooms, blogs and other content for material that flouts propaganda directives. For four years, Google followed suit with its Chinese search engine, Google.cn.
The Internet companies’ employees are constantly guessing what is allowed and what will prompt a phone call from government censors. One tactic is to strictly censor risky content at first, then gradually expand access to it week by week, hoping not to trip the censorship wire.
The monitors sit astride a vast and expanding state apparatus that extends to the most remote Chinese town. “There is an Internet monitoring and surveillance unit in every city, wherever you have an Internet connection,” said Xiao Qiang, an analyst of China’s censorship system, at the University of California, Berkeley. “Through that system, they get to every major Web site with content.”
Under a 2005 State Council regulation, personal blogs, computer bulletin boards and even cellphone text messages are deemed part of the news media, subject to sweeping restrictions on their content.
In practice, many of those restrictions are spottily applied. But reminders that someone is watching are pointed and regular.
An inopportune post to a computer chat forum may produce a rejection message chiding the author for “inappropriate content,” and the link to the post may be deleted. Forbidden text messages may be delivered to cellphones as blank screens.
Even so, screening the electronic activities of hundreds of millions of people is a nearly impossible task. Moreover, users increasingly are resorting to technological maneuvers like virtual private networks and proxy servers to sidestep the censors’ blocking of banned Web sites altogether. By some reports, a million people now hurdle the Great Firewall via such dodges — a number that remains a tiny fraction of all users, but that has spiked upward in the last year.
So the censors have taken other tacks to tighten their grip.
One is automation. China’s leading instant-messaging service, called QQ, automatically installs a program on users’ computers that monitors their communications and blocks censored text.
The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology tried last year to expand automated censorship nationwide through mandatory Green Dam software that could remotely update lists of banned topics. After an outcry from Internet users and corporations, the state backed off, but Green Dam or other filtering software remains installed on computers in some Internet cafes and schools. Last month, the government signaled that a version for cellphones was in the works.
Another strategy is manipulation. In recent years, local and provincial officials have hired armies of low-paid commentators to monitor blogs and chat rooms for sensitive issues, then spin online comment in the government’s favor.
Mr. Xiao of Berkeley cites one example: Jiaozuo, a city southwest of Beijing, deployed 35 Internet commentators and 120 police officers to defuse online attacks on the local police after a traffic dispute. By flooding chat rooms with pro-police comments, the team turned the tone of online comment from negative to positive in just 20 minutes.
According to one official newspaper editor who refused to be named, propaganda authorities now calculate that confronted with a public controversy, local officials have a window of about two hours to block information and flood the Web with their own line before the reaction of citizens is beyond control.
Zhang Shihe, a self-identified citizen journalist and blogger with the pen name Tiger Temple, said the government ranked various bloggers by the risk they posed. “The most dangerous ones will be shut down, and some others will receive alerts from the government,” he said.
Mr. Zhang’s own blog posts are sometimes deleted. His workaround is to publish six blogs, hosted on different Internet sites: because censorship rules are vague and the censors merely human, a post that one blocks may be ignored or overlooked by another.
That may not last long. The consensus is that the government is rapidly getting better at its work.
Consider: One chilling new regulation limits those who can operate a site on China’s .cn domain to registered businesses, and requires operators to produce Chinese identification. “In case they need to shut you down for some subversive content, they need to know how to find you,” said an executive with one Beijing firm that hosts Web sites.
Major cities like Beijing — which last year advertised for 10,000 voluntary Internet monitors — are increasingly taking censorship into their own hands.
Pitted against this are those who argue that government chokeholds on the Internet cannot succeed. Bloggers like Mr. Zhang argue that growing restrictions on Internet speech only inflame ordinary users, and that bit by bit “people are pushing the wall back.”
Or at least trying. At a recent meeting of Chinese Internet leaders in the southern city of Shenzhen, Ding Jian, who heads the Internet company AsiaInfo, proposed that Shenzhen be made a censorship-free zone as an experiment to determine whether China can stomach the chaos of an unfettered Internet. Strangling free speech, one entrepreneur argued, is likely to strangle innovation as well.
The Internet portal NetEase published a report of the meeting. It was quickly deleted.
Li Bibo contributed research.
Monday, March 22, 2010
359) Google vs China: shifting search engines to Hong Kong
Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, March 22, 2010 -- 3:34 PM ET
-----
Google Shifting China Search Engine to Hong Kong
Google said it will shift its search engine for China off the
mainland. Visitors to Google.cn were now being redirected to
Google's Chinese-language service based in Hong Kong.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html?emc=na
Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship
By MIGUEL HELFT and DAVID BARBOZA
The New York Times, March 22, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — Just over two months after threatening to leave China because of censorship and intrusions by Chinese hackers, Google said Monday that it was closing its China-based Internet search service and instead directing Chinese users to a Hong Kong-based uncensored version of its search engine, which may get blocked in mainland China.
In a blog post, Google also said that it would retain much of its existing China operations, including its research and development team and its local sales force. The stunning move represents a powerful slap at Beijing regulators but also a risky ploy in which Google — one of the world’s technology powerhouses — will essentially turn its back on the world’s largest Internet market, with nearly 400 million Web users and growing quickly.
“Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on Google.cn has been hard,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote in the blog post. “We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement.”
Mr. Drummond said that Google’s Hong Kong-based search engine would provide mainland China users results in simplified Chinese characters used on the mainland and was “entirely legal.”
“We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision,” Mr. Drummond said, “though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.”
Google’s decision to scale back operations in China ends a nearly four-year bet by the company’s founders and top executives that Google’s search engine in China, even if censored, would help bring more information to Chinese citizens and loosen the government’s controls on the Internet.
Instead, specialists say, Chinese authorities have tightened their grip on the Internet in recent years. While other multinational companies are not expected to follow suit, some Western executives say Google’s decision is a symbol of a worsening business climate in China for foreign corporations and perhaps an indication that the Chinese government is favoring home-grown companies.
“It is certainly a historic moment,” said Xiao Qiang, director of the China Internet project at the University of California, Berkeley. “The Internet was seen as a catalyst for China being more integrated into the world. The fact that Google cannot exist in China, clearly indicates that China’s path as a rising power is going in a direction different from what the world expected and what many Chinese were hoping for.”
Despite its size and reputation for innovation, Google trails its main Chinese rival, Baidu.com, which was modeled on Google, with 33 percent market share to Baidu’s 63 percent.
The decision to shut down its China-based search engine will have a limited financial impact on Google, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. China accounted for a small fraction of Google’s $23.6 billion in global revenues last year. Still, abandoning a direct search engine presence in the largest Internet market in the world could have long-term repercussions and thwart Google’s ambitions to be a global superpower, analysts say.
Beijing has not yet responded to Google’s decision, which was announced around 3 a.m. Beijing time, but government officials have scolded Google in recent weeks insisting that the company must comply with the law.
Some Western analysts say Chinese regulators could retaliate against Google by blocking its Hong Kong or American search engines entirely, just as it blocks YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
Supporters of Google have praised the company for taking a principled stand and effectively refusing to operate a censored Web site here, one that limits free speech and deletes information about democracy and human rights issues.
In a statement, Leslie Harris, chief executive of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology, praised Google “for following through on its commitment to protect human rights and for its continued effort to enable China’s people with unfiltered access to robust sources of information from all over the world. Whether the Chinese people will be able to take advantage of Google search now rests squarely with the Chinese government.”
But other specialists said it was a foolish business decision that has unnecessarily embarrassed Beijing and one that could make it difficult for Google to continue operating other parts of its business in China.
In China, many students and professionals say they are extremely disappointed by Google’s decision to close its Chinese language Web site. They are about to lose access to the company’s vast resources, they say.
Last January, when Google initially threatened to leave China, many young people there placed wreaths at the company headquarters in Beijing as a sign of mourning.
At that time, Google said it had grown frustrated with complying with government censorship rules and that hackers based in China had stolen some of the company’s source code and even broken into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights advocates.
The attacks were aimed at Google and more than 20 other American companies, the company said. While Google did not say the attacks were government sponsored, the company said it had enough information about the attacks to justify its threat to leave China.
People, inside and outside of Google, investigating the attacks have since put the number of companies that were targets at more than 30, and have traced the attacks to two universities in China: Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Lanxiang Vocational School.
The universities and the Chinese government have denied any involvement in the attacks.
At the time of its announcement, Google said that its decision might well result in its having to shut down its China-based search engine, Google.cn, or leaving the country. In subsequent days, however, Google said that it hoped to preserve as much of its business in China as possible. In addition to its search engine, the company has a staff of about 600 that includes highly paid engineers and sales people, and a fledgling mobile phone business.
After serving Chinese users through its search engine based in the United States, Google decided to enter the Chinese market in 2006 with a local search engine under an arrangement with the government that required it to purge search results on banned topics.
But since then, Google has struggled to comply with Chinese censorship rules and failed to gain significant market share from Baidu.com, a Chinese site that was modeled on Google.
The decision to enter China, was also hotly debated in the company, and Google has come under criticism for cooperating with China’s censors. Not surprisingly, when the company said it would no longer abide by China’s censorship rules, human rights groups hailed the announcement, saying that Google’s stand should be a model for other American companies.
.
The decision to scale back its operations in China will have only a limited financial impact on Google in the short term. Google does not break down revenue by country, but people familiar with the company’s business in China said that its quarterly sales were in the vicinity of $150 million in the most recent quarter, which ended Dec. 31. Globally, it had $6.67 billion in revenue in the same period. Much of Google’s revenue in China comes from ads that Chinese companies place on Google’s sites in the United States and elsewhere. What’s more, ads that Google used to place on its China-based search engine will now be placed on the Hong Kong site, so as long as the site is unblocked in mainland China, Google will continue to earn revenue from them.
But the fallout from the decision could affect Google over the long term, as the Chinese Internet market continues to grow quickly.
Google is not the first American Internet company to stumble here. Nearly every major American brand has arrived with high hopes only to be stunted by government rules or fierce competition from Chinese rivals.
After struggling to compete in China, Yahoo sold its Chinese operations to Alibaba Group, a local company; Ebay and Amazon never got traction; and Microsoft’s MSN instant messaging service badly trails rival Tencent.
Google’s departure could present an opportunity for Baidu, whose stock has soared since the confrontation between Google and China began. It could also give a chance to Microsoft, a perennial underdog in Internet search, to make inroads into the Chinese market. Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, has a very small share of the market.
Many analysts say the government has favored and aided Chinese Internet start-ups, but that those businesses have also out maneuvered American companies.
Inside Google, the decision to pull out is widely believed to have been championed by Sergey Brin, a co-founder, who was born in the Soviet Union and is particularly sensitive to the issue of censorship. The decision by Google to enter China in 2006 was hotly debated internally, with Mr. Brin advising against it, while fellow co-founder, Larry Page, and chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt arguing for it.
Early this year, company executives acknowledged that their bet that Google could help open China had failed.
“We were looking at an environment that is more difficult than it was when we started,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer said in January. “Far from our presence helping to open things up, it seems that things are getting tighter for open expression and freedom.”
David Barboza reported from Shanghai and Miguel Helft from San Francisco.
The New York Times
Mon, March 22, 2010 -- 3:34 PM ET
-----
Google Shifting China Search Engine to Hong Kong
Google said it will shift its search engine for China off the
mainland. Visitors to Google.cn were now being redirected to
Google's Chinese-language service based in Hong Kong.
Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/technology/23google.html?emc=na
Google Shuts China Site in Dispute Over Censorship
By MIGUEL HELFT and DAVID BARBOZA
The New York Times, March 22, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO — Just over two months after threatening to leave China because of censorship and intrusions by Chinese hackers, Google said Monday that it was closing its China-based Internet search service and instead directing Chinese users to a Hong Kong-based uncensored version of its search engine, which may get blocked in mainland China.
In a blog post, Google also said that it would retain much of its existing China operations, including its research and development team and its local sales force. The stunning move represents a powerful slap at Beijing regulators but also a risky ploy in which Google — one of the world’s technology powerhouses — will essentially turn its back on the world’s largest Internet market, with nearly 400 million Web users and growing quickly.
“Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on Google.cn has been hard,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, wrote in the blog post. “We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement.”
Mr. Drummond said that Google’s Hong Kong-based search engine would provide mainland China users results in simplified Chinese characters used on the mainland and was “entirely legal.”
“We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision,” Mr. Drummond said, “though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services.”
Google’s decision to scale back operations in China ends a nearly four-year bet by the company’s founders and top executives that Google’s search engine in China, even if censored, would help bring more information to Chinese citizens and loosen the government’s controls on the Internet.
Instead, specialists say, Chinese authorities have tightened their grip on the Internet in recent years. While other multinational companies are not expected to follow suit, some Western executives say Google’s decision is a symbol of a worsening business climate in China for foreign corporations and perhaps an indication that the Chinese government is favoring home-grown companies.
“It is certainly a historic moment,” said Xiao Qiang, director of the China Internet project at the University of California, Berkeley. “The Internet was seen as a catalyst for China being more integrated into the world. The fact that Google cannot exist in China, clearly indicates that China’s path as a rising power is going in a direction different from what the world expected and what many Chinese were hoping for.”
Despite its size and reputation for innovation, Google trails its main Chinese rival, Baidu.com, which was modeled on Google, with 33 percent market share to Baidu’s 63 percent.
The decision to shut down its China-based search engine will have a limited financial impact on Google, which is based in Mountain View, Calif. China accounted for a small fraction of Google’s $23.6 billion in global revenues last year. Still, abandoning a direct search engine presence in the largest Internet market in the world could have long-term repercussions and thwart Google’s ambitions to be a global superpower, analysts say.
Beijing has not yet responded to Google’s decision, which was announced around 3 a.m. Beijing time, but government officials have scolded Google in recent weeks insisting that the company must comply with the law.
Some Western analysts say Chinese regulators could retaliate against Google by blocking its Hong Kong or American search engines entirely, just as it blocks YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
Supporters of Google have praised the company for taking a principled stand and effectively refusing to operate a censored Web site here, one that limits free speech and deletes information about democracy and human rights issues.
In a statement, Leslie Harris, chief executive of the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology, praised Google “for following through on its commitment to protect human rights and for its continued effort to enable China’s people with unfiltered access to robust sources of information from all over the world. Whether the Chinese people will be able to take advantage of Google search now rests squarely with the Chinese government.”
But other specialists said it was a foolish business decision that has unnecessarily embarrassed Beijing and one that could make it difficult for Google to continue operating other parts of its business in China.
In China, many students and professionals say they are extremely disappointed by Google’s decision to close its Chinese language Web site. They are about to lose access to the company’s vast resources, they say.
Last January, when Google initially threatened to leave China, many young people there placed wreaths at the company headquarters in Beijing as a sign of mourning.
At that time, Google said it had grown frustrated with complying with government censorship rules and that hackers based in China had stolen some of the company’s source code and even broken into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights advocates.
The attacks were aimed at Google and more than 20 other American companies, the company said. While Google did not say the attacks were government sponsored, the company said it had enough information about the attacks to justify its threat to leave China.
People, inside and outside of Google, investigating the attacks have since put the number of companies that were targets at more than 30, and have traced the attacks to two universities in China: Shanghai Jiao Tong University and the Lanxiang Vocational School.
The universities and the Chinese government have denied any involvement in the attacks.
At the time of its announcement, Google said that its decision might well result in its having to shut down its China-based search engine, Google.cn, or leaving the country. In subsequent days, however, Google said that it hoped to preserve as much of its business in China as possible. In addition to its search engine, the company has a staff of about 600 that includes highly paid engineers and sales people, and a fledgling mobile phone business.
After serving Chinese users through its search engine based in the United States, Google decided to enter the Chinese market in 2006 with a local search engine under an arrangement with the government that required it to purge search results on banned topics.
But since then, Google has struggled to comply with Chinese censorship rules and failed to gain significant market share from Baidu.com, a Chinese site that was modeled on Google.
The decision to enter China, was also hotly debated in the company, and Google has come under criticism for cooperating with China’s censors. Not surprisingly, when the company said it would no longer abide by China’s censorship rules, human rights groups hailed the announcement, saying that Google’s stand should be a model for other American companies.
.
The decision to scale back its operations in China will have only a limited financial impact on Google in the short term. Google does not break down revenue by country, but people familiar with the company’s business in China said that its quarterly sales were in the vicinity of $150 million in the most recent quarter, which ended Dec. 31. Globally, it had $6.67 billion in revenue in the same period. Much of Google’s revenue in China comes from ads that Chinese companies place on Google’s sites in the United States and elsewhere. What’s more, ads that Google used to place on its China-based search engine will now be placed on the Hong Kong site, so as long as the site is unblocked in mainland China, Google will continue to earn revenue from them.
But the fallout from the decision could affect Google over the long term, as the Chinese Internet market continues to grow quickly.
Google is not the first American Internet company to stumble here. Nearly every major American brand has arrived with high hopes only to be stunted by government rules or fierce competition from Chinese rivals.
After struggling to compete in China, Yahoo sold its Chinese operations to Alibaba Group, a local company; Ebay and Amazon never got traction; and Microsoft’s MSN instant messaging service badly trails rival Tencent.
Google’s departure could present an opportunity for Baidu, whose stock has soared since the confrontation between Google and China began. It could also give a chance to Microsoft, a perennial underdog in Internet search, to make inroads into the Chinese market. Microsoft’s search engine, Bing, has a very small share of the market.
Many analysts say the government has favored and aided Chinese Internet start-ups, but that those businesses have also out maneuvered American companies.
Inside Google, the decision to pull out is widely believed to have been championed by Sergey Brin, a co-founder, who was born in the Soviet Union and is particularly sensitive to the issue of censorship. The decision by Google to enter China in 2006 was hotly debated internally, with Mr. Brin advising against it, while fellow co-founder, Larry Page, and chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt arguing for it.
Early this year, company executives acknowledged that their bet that Google could help open China had failed.
“We were looking at an environment that is more difficult than it was when we started,” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer said in January. “Far from our presence helping to open things up, it seems that things are getting tighter for open expression and freedom.”
David Barboza reported from Shanghai and Miguel Helft from San Francisco.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
171) Big Brother chinês exagerando demais (se isso não é uma contradicão nos termos...)
Eu constatei pessoalmente todo o poderio do autoritarismo censório chinês, ainda recentemente, ao permanecer no país durante uma semana. Em nenhum momento consegui acesso a qualquer blog, e infinitas vezes tentativas de acessar um site qualquer (nada de comprometedor para as autoridades chinesas) o resultado irritante era o "Google chinês", o Baidu, um site persistente em se imiscuir onde não é chamado...
Google, Citing Cyber Attack, Threatens to Exit China
By MIGUEL HELFT and JOHN MARKOFF
The New York Times, January 13, 2010
Google threatened to pull out of its operations in China after it said it had uncovered a massive cyber attack on its computers that originated there.
As a result, the company said, it would no longer agree to censor its search engine in China and may exit the country altogether.
Google said that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human right activists, but that the attack also targeted 20 other large companies in the finance, technology, media and chemical sectors.
In a blog posting by David Drummond, the corporate development and chief legal officer, Google said that it had found a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China.”
“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China,” Mr. Drummond wrote in a blog post.
He wrote that Google was no longer willing to censor results on its Chinese-language search engine and would discuss with Chinese authorities whether it could operate an uncensored search engine in that country.
“We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China,” Mr. Drummond wrote, adding that the decision was being driven by executives in the United States, “without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China.”
Google did not publicly link the Chinese government to the cyber attack, but people with knowledge of Google’s investigation said they had enough evidence to justify its actions.
A United States expert on cyber warfare said that 34 companies were targeted, most of them high-technology companies in Silicon Valley. The attacks came from Taiwanese Internet addresses, according to James Mulvenon, an expert on Chinese cyberwarfare capabilities.
Mr. Mulvenon said that the stolen documents were sent electronically to a server controlled by Rackspace, based in San Antonio.
“For Google to pull up stakes and basically pull out China, the attack must have been large in scope and very penetrating,” Mr. Mulvenon said. “This attack highlights the fact that cyberwarfare has basically gone to the next level.”
Mr. Drummond said that Google decided to speak publicly about the attack not only because of its security and human rights implications, but because “this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech.”
Google entered the China market in 2006, agreeing to introduce a censored search engine. At the time, the company said that it believed that the benefits of its presence in China outweighed the downside of being forced to censor some search results there, as it would provide more information and openness to Chinese citizens.
But the company said that it would continue to monitor restrictions in that country and review its decision periodically.
Google, Citing Cyber Attack, Threatens to Exit China
By MIGUEL HELFT and JOHN MARKOFF
The New York Times, January 13, 2010
Google threatened to pull out of its operations in China after it said it had uncovered a massive cyber attack on its computers that originated there.
As a result, the company said, it would no longer agree to censor its search engine in China and may exit the country altogether.
Google said that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human right activists, but that the attack also targeted 20 other large companies in the finance, technology, media and chemical sectors.
In a blog posting by David Drummond, the corporate development and chief legal officer, Google said that it had found a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China.”
“These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered — combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web — have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China,” Mr. Drummond wrote in a blog post.
He wrote that Google was no longer willing to censor results on its Chinese-language search engine and would discuss with Chinese authorities whether it could operate an uncensored search engine in that country.
“We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China,” Mr. Drummond wrote, adding that the decision was being driven by executives in the United States, “without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China.”
Google did not publicly link the Chinese government to the cyber attack, but people with knowledge of Google’s investigation said they had enough evidence to justify its actions.
A United States expert on cyber warfare said that 34 companies were targeted, most of them high-technology companies in Silicon Valley. The attacks came from Taiwanese Internet addresses, according to James Mulvenon, an expert on Chinese cyberwarfare capabilities.
Mr. Mulvenon said that the stolen documents were sent electronically to a server controlled by Rackspace, based in San Antonio.
“For Google to pull up stakes and basically pull out China, the attack must have been large in scope and very penetrating,” Mr. Mulvenon said. “This attack highlights the fact that cyberwarfare has basically gone to the next level.”
Mr. Drummond said that Google decided to speak publicly about the attack not only because of its security and human rights implications, but because “this information goes to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech.”
Google entered the China market in 2006, agreeing to introduce a censored search engine. At the time, the company said that it believed that the benefits of its presence in China outweighed the downside of being forced to censor some search results there, as it would provide more information and openness to Chinese citizens.
But the company said that it would continue to monitor restrictions in that country and review its decision periodically.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
