China to Require All PCs Include Internet-Censoring Software
For quite a while, I subscribed to the theory that China’s capitalist development would require the diffusion of modern information technology, and the diffusion of modern information technology would necessarily tend to undermine the Communist Party’s dictatorship. But over the past few years, the dictatorship has proven itself to be much more resourceful about squaring this circle than a lot of us used to assume was possible. The key factor is that the Chinese market is so enormous that China can impose rules like this new one and know that many companies will want to play along:
China has issued a sweeping directive requiring all personal computers sold in the country to include sophisticated software that can filter out pornography and other “unhealthy information” from the Internet. The software, which manufacturers must install on all new PC’s starting July 1, allows the government to update computers regularly with an ever-changing list of banned Web sites.
This also highlights why political developments in China are so crucial for the entire world. If, say, Iran tried to do this it almost certainly wouldn’t fly. But companies will fall all over each other to cater to the Chinese market. Then, once the technology is in place other autocracies can try to piggyback on work that’s been done in and for China. But absent China, almost all of world output would be happening in democratic nations, and it would be easy to structure the global economy in the kind of way optimists were hoping it would work for China.
43 Responses to “China to Require All PCs Include Internet-Censoring Software”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
June 8th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
That headline could have been written a different way: “China to Require All PC Users Know How to Get Around Internet-Censoring Software”
June 8th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I am shocked, SHOCKED to discover that free trade policies aren’t paving the way to a democratic capitalist utopia. Shocked, I say!
Mike
June 8th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
For quite a while, I subscribed to the theory that China’s capitalist development would require the diffusion of modern information technology, and the diffusion of modern information technology would necessarily tend to undermine the Communist Party’s dictatorship.
I think there is a Panglossian tendency among liberals – as I said to DTM the other day – to believe this is the best of all possible worlds and that autocratic regimes will sooner or later naturally evolve out of it and join the family of nations. Unfortunately this isn’t the case.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
If they can detect all the spyware sites and add them to the database I might be tempted to install their software
June 8th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
My guess is this will spawn some more innovation. China has 1.3 Billion people. One of then will figure out how to beat the government software. And then we’ll all be able to buy the software to defeat government intrusion on the web. China has been losing the technology wars ever since the Chinese people began using illegal fax networks to defeat government restrictions on news coverage. They’ll lose this battle, too.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
This makes me wonder if perhaps the hackers of the world have finally found a worthy cause. Also makes me wonder what the market for underground news looks like today, and might look like ten to twenty years from now.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I don’t see how China won’t eventually pay a price in less innovation — especially less foreign-financed innovation. Lack of web freedom might not affect your ability to manufacture toys or cement, but it certainly can’t be good for software development, or pharmaceuticals, or consulting. It might not be apparent in 2009, but even mighty Beijing is not immune to the power of the global market. Some day soon I predict we’ll see the results of their ham-handedness in less growth and less quickly rising living standards.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Re: I think there is a Panglossian tendency among liberals – as I said to DTM the other day – to believe this is the best of all possible worlds and that autocratic regimes will sooner or later naturally evolve out of it and join the family of nations.
If late-capitalist America is the best of all possible worlds, then please give me a gun so I can shoot myself.
Re: China has issued a sweeping directive requiring all personal computers sold in the country to include sophisticated software that can filter out pornography and other “unhealthy information” from the Internet.
Good on them, by God. One hopes for the day when this technology spreads worldwide so that all countries can censor porn and other spiritual and ideological poison from the internet. That includes the writings of Mr. Steve Sailor and his sort. Of course, I suppose the Yglesian hipsters of the world will be there till the bitter end, standing up for Hugh Hefner and his ‘rights’.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Linux? Mac?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“My guess is this will spawn some more innovation. China has 1.3 Billion people. One of then will figure out how to beat the government software.”
And maybe the Chinese will figure out how to imprison and beat that innovator. The usual rules of “innovation always triumph” don’t apply when innovation can get you jailed.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I suppose the Yglesian hipsters of the world will be there till the bitter end, standing up for Hugh Hefner and his ‘rights’.
It’s so cute the way you use Hugh Hefner as the symbol of contemporary hedonistic decadence. Sort of like conservatives getting all het up over Jane Fonda.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I suspect that the RIAA and MPAA would be very happy to see this kind of technology spread to the US, and all of a sudden, have all websites with “torrent” in the title get banned.
On the semi serious side, though, there is massive on line piracy in China, that must have methods of piercing government firewalls, so I suspect there will be solutions to this scheme as well.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
believe this is the best of all possible worlds and that autocratic regimes will sooner or later naturally evolve out of it and join the family of nations.
No, it’s the belief that with more capitalism comes more liberty. Sounds like modern conservatism to me. But, like all things, liberty/money are unequally spread out among the population.
Instead, it’s NGOs/civil society that gets democracy going. It’s just tough to make happen and it takes forever in autocratic regimes, but the countries are a whole lot more stable in the long-term than dictator-toppling and a whole lot more free than solely throwing investment at the problem.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I think there is a Panglossian tendency among liberals – as I said to DTM the other day – to believe this is the best of all possible worlds and that autocratic regimes will sooner or later naturally evolve out of it and join the family of nations. Unfortunately this isn’t the case.
Isn’t that a bit of a strong conclusion to make based on China installing censorship software on PCs?
You’re gonna have to come up with a few stronger arguments to overcome the extremely strong counterexample: the autocratic USSR eventually evolving out of it and joining the family nations. It took a while, and Russia certainly isn’t a model democracy, but it happened, peacefully.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
“The usual rules of “innovation always triumph” don’t apply when innovation can get you jailed.”
True, but the Chinese people have developed innovative ways to defeat their government before. And dissidents did go to jail before. Some people are willing to go to jail for their freedom. I don’t see how the dissidents have become less determined and less brave than they were during Tiananmen Square. Government brutality has never broken any of the dissident movements in China before. Why should it this time?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
SHHHHHHHH, Matt, don’t criticize the Celestial Kingdom out loud! You’ll start a New Cold War, and also future Chinese generations will remember that we hated them and tried to keep them down, and then all will be lost!!
June 8th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
“One hopes for the day when this technology spreads worldwide so that all countries can censor porn and other spiritual and ideological poison from the internet.”
Yeah, so all the governments of the world can be as oppressive as China. That’s good thinking, Hector. But speaking of spiritual poison, how about if America installs this software and declares Christianity to be “spiritual poison?” I’m assuming your position on censorship wouldn’t change if content you wanted were to be censored. You wouldn’t possibly be applying a double standard, would you? Keep in mind that China will use this software to censor Christian websites. Are you really okay with ANY and ALL forms of censorship, or do just want to be the world’s censor?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Am I too cynical to think that Obama scheduled his Cairo trip when he did with the intent of avoiding questions regarding Tiananmen Square? It seems to have worked. Search google news — nothing pops.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Isn’t that a bit of a strong conclusion to make based on China installing censorship software on PCs?
You’re gonna have to come up with a few stronger arguments to overcome the extremely strong counterexample: the autocratic USSR eventually evolving out of it and joining the family nations. It took a while, and Russia certainly isn’t a model democracy, but it happened, peacefully.
I’d argue that Russia is still autocratic, but yeah it could have been worse. (all though USSR’s collapse took a huge economic toll on the F.S.U.’s people and there was Chechnya, etc.) Matt’s point was that he thought China would be better now regarding democracy – b/c of trade and info tech – and in the best of all possible worlds, it would have evolved that way. They have been good, say, about the financial crisis. And they could have devolved in a worse, more nationalistic direction. Still can.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Am I too cynical to think that Obama scheduled his Cairo trip when he did with the intent of avoiding questions regarding Tiananmen Square? It seems to have worked. Search google news — nothing pops.
This thought came to me too, sadly, since I’m an Obamabot infused with Obamamania.
Hillary said something publically about China facing its past honestly so it can heal, which Glenn Greenwald noted was ironic given the Obama admin.’s stance on looking into the Bush torture years. But the two aren’t perfectly analogous.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Am I too cynical to think that Obama scheduled his Cairo trip when he did with the intent of avoiding questions regarding Tiananmen Square?
Not at all. I’m sure that the fact that the 65th anniversary of D-Day fell on the same weekend as the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre is some kind of nefarious plot by Obama. Possibly, he used his secret time-travel device to go back to WWII and insist to the Allies that they make sure to schedule it that way.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Following James Fallows a bit here, the point isn’t to keep dissidents from accessing information. The point is to keep the mass public that doesn’t employ proxy-servers or the like. In some ways, the work arounds are a pressure release valve that keeps apolitical techies from becoming too radicalized.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Please don’t be obtuse, NonyNony
D-Day: June 6
Tiananmen Square: June 4
Cairo Speech: June 4
You know damn well that if he’d gone straight from DC to Normandy on the 4th/5th, he’d have been asked to comment before departing.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
re: Cairo
That’s a little much. You mean the president is gonna have to keep scheduling historical speeches to avoid even the slightest mention of Tienanmen? Doubtful. It was probably a happy coincidence, a fourth or fifth benefit of scheduling the speech that day.
re: Chinese Censorship
I still think Yglesia’s and Poptarts conclusions are a bit too strong in response to what has actually occurred. The trend over the past 20 years has certainly been towards more opening and more information exchange with the West, it’ll take a bit more to convince me otherwise.
Furthermore, they’ll soon realize free exchange of information is in their interest. There’s a reason so many Chinese (not Chinese-American, but Chinese) students study at universities in the West: our technological and scientific advantages stem not just from economic investment in research, but from greater ability to communicate, disseminate, and commercialize ideas.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Actually, all they are doing is requiring PC manufacturers to include a CD that users can install if they want too, so that parents, for example, can block out porn.
Putting software on the PC itself would be the worst way to try to censor the internet. It would never work because users could just remove the stuff themselves.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
At least the Chinese people will be spared the wonders of Two girls, one cup.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
I usually like a lot of what Matt writes, but this is just nonsense. First, as already pointed out by user example, the software seems to come as CD, and could be switched off. But the real nonsense in this post starts here:
“The key factor is that the Chinese market is so enormous that China can impose rules like this new one and know that many companies will want to play along”
and
“If, say, Iran tried to do this it almost certainly wouldn’t fly. But companies will fall all over each other to cater to the Chinese market.”
What does this have to do with the size of the market? Nothing. China does not rely on outside companies to supply them with preassembled computers or even components. Components are freely available in China, so even small shops can build their own systems. In fact, it might be easier to do this in Iran since components need to be imported. And why the obsession about Iran, which offers more freedom to its citizens than say Saudi Arabia or Syria. Better examples!
Great blog, but silliest post this week.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Hector:
You are naive if you think this is really about pornography.
The rest of you:
It is really a false assumption to claim that this indicts free trade. Properly viewed, this should be seen as a trade barrier that the WTO could take action against. Whether it will, of course, is a different matter, but it should.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
They won’t be able to keep up with newly-created websites that replace those on the list. Those in the know will let others know where to find the new sites and on and on.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
This is completely unworkable unless they use some variant of TPM technology (”trusted computing”) whereby the software installed must remain to allow the machine and the OS to boot at all.
Even then, given the number of Chinese hackers, eventually there will be a LOT of Chinese getting around this stuff, and just trading the porn on CDs or flash drives, so they don’t have to download it, and viewing it in virtual machines running off the flash drives or live CDs.
As usual, only the technologically illiterate will be affected. It might cut down on the amount of porn or dissident stuff the average Chinese PC owner might see, but overall it will be a bust.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Hey, cool! We’re doing that in Australia too. At least we won’t be alone!
June 9th, 2009 at 2:42 am
I don’t see how the dissidents have become less determined and less brave than they were during Tiananmn Square. Government brutality has never broken any of the dissident movements in China before. Why should it this time?
What are you talking about? First of all the tiananmn movement was not largely unsuccessful. And even more improtant, there is currently no popular dissident movement in China worth talking about and the exile community is riven by silly infighting and is largely seen as a joke.
Lots of people seem to believe that since Chinese censorship isn’t perfectly able to shield its citizens from outside sources of information it is somehow a failure. But that completley misses the point.
The current system of government control of speech and the internet is incredibly successful. It keeps the vast majority of the population in the dark about the past, (the knowledge of the average person in China about tiananmn in China is probably less than the average American). It is an effective net for catching potential dissidents and removing them from positions of power. And last and usually ignored in America is that the Chinese are able to use the internet as an effective means for distributing propaganda, the amount of astro-turfing by the Chinese government is probably larger than all other organizations around.
June 9th, 2009 at 8:11 am
I’m in Shanghai now, and “afu” is spot on.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:03 am
” If, say, Iran tried to do this it almost certainly wouldn’t fly.”
Why on earth not? To the extent that any computer company sells systems to Iran already, they probably don’t care about international opinion that much. And if they do, they’ll just be replaced by less scrupulous companie and domestic firms. More to the point, most PCs around the world are built in country from parts manufactured abroad. There’s no disincentive whatsoever for domestic manufacturers to comply.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Dilan,
Of course it’s in large part to censor political speech. Who cares? Why should every government in the world allow sedition? I certainly don’t think that, for example, Venezuela should allow right wing @$$Holes to derail the government. And if they can profit by the Chinese development of censorship methods then so much the better.
More generally, the nice thing about these censored systems is that they teach yahoos like yourself the lesson that you don’t have the right to look at or read whatever you like. And that’s a good thing.
June 9th, 2009 at 10:00 am
More to the point: a civilised society has not only the right but the duty to regulate what kind of content is available on the internet. If it is necessary to ban drugs, which are poison for people’s bodies, _for the good of the people_, then it is also sometimes necessary to ban intellectual and moral poison for people’s souls.
I am not in any way a fan of the Chinese government, but it is a fact that a just and virtuous government, like that of Venezuela, will sooner or later need to regulate the press and the internet for the good of the people.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Of course it’s in large part to censor political speech. Who cares? Why should every government in the world allow sedition?
1. Hector, there’s a big portion of “speech critical of the government” or the even bigger category of “speech the Chinese government is afraid of” that does not constitute sedition.
2. Governments should allow critical speech because governments aren’t always right. To pick an issue you care about deeply, even though I am pro-choice I don’t think that we would be a better country if the US government banned speech critical of abortion rights. (Indeed, I support the rights of clinic protesters so long as they don’t block ingress and egress.)
The Chinese government is a murderous dictatorship. Suppressing free speech is crucial to preserving its ability to engage in awful and repressive policies.
More to the point: a civilised society has not only the right but the duty to regulate what kind of content is available on the internet. If it is necessary to ban drugs, which are poison for people’s bodies, _for the good of the people_, then it is also sometimes necessary to ban intellectual and moral poison for people’s souls.
Hector, your vision of the powers of government is not materially different than the world sketched out by Orwell in 1984– a boot constantly stomping on humanity.
The irony is that the very system that you think is intellectually bankrupt and poisoning is the system that allows you to reach an audience via the internet. One of the big mistakes would-be censors make is assuming that the government that censors will share their values rather than trying to stamp them out.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Re: Governments should allow critical speech because governments aren’t always right. To pick an issue you care about deeply, even though I am pro-choice I don’t think that we would be a better country if the US government banned speech critical of abortion rights.
Good, Dilan. If I ever was in charnge of designing an ideal society, I would very much suppress speech promoting abortion rights. Indeed, I would write it into the constitution that promoting pro-choice ideas would be viewed as a form of subversion, and would demand that the collected works of Judith Jarvis Thomsen be confiscated and burned by the public hangman. As Daniel Ortega has pointed out, pro-choice feminists in Latin America are nothing but a capitalist-imperialist fifth column seeking to subordinate Latin America to the decadent West.
June 9th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Good, Dilan. If I ever was in charnge of designing an ideal society, I would very much suppress speech promoting abortion rights. Indeed, I would write it into the constitution that promoting pro-choice ideas would be viewed as a form of subversion, and would demand that the collected works of Judith Jarvis Thomsen be confiscated and burned by the public hangman. As Daniel Ortega has pointed out, pro-choice feminists in Latin America are nothing but a capitalist-imperialist fifth column seeking to subordinate Latin America to the decadent West.
And once you pass the sedition laws necessary to accomplish that end, and then the pro-choicers get power anyway, what are you going to do?
Again, Hector, governments aren’t always right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…
June 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Re: Again, Hector, governments aren’t always right.
Perhaps, Dilan. But this I do know. Soulless liberal cosmopolites such as yourself are _always wrong_, and the less room they are allowed to influence society in malign direction, the better.
June 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Perhaps, Dilan. But this I do know. Soulless liberal cosmopolites such as yourself are _always wrong_, and the less room they are allowed to influence society in malign direction, the better.
Hector, nobody in life is “always right” or “always wrong”. Indeed, it would be strange for you to espouse that given that as I understand it, just about every Orthodox form of Christianity teaches this.
June 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Why are people still responding to this freakazoid Hector? He’s a religious fanatic, a fascist, an imperialist, just about every list of fucked up retard concept you can imagine.
And he has the gall to complain about a bank robber!
June 10th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dilan Esper,
Fine. Postmodern liberal cosmopolites like yourself are overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, given that you’ve been wrong on most of the moral issues of our time. And therefore in a decent society you would be completely shut out of the public discourse, and advocacy of abortion would be treated the same as advocacy of the Ku-Klux-Klan.
It figures that the smack addict, armed robber and apologist for genocide Richard Steven Hack is coming to your defence. A proper society of course would crack down on Mr. Hack’s moral nihilism as much as on your pro-choice second wave feminism. Mr. Hack, just why should I treat a smack addict like yourself with the slightest shard of respect?