The Chinese Communist Party's main newspaper is (apparently without a trace of irony) accusing Google of unfairly censoring its website for having reported on the search firm's book-scanning copyright dispute. People's Daily said its online book section was blocked from Google searches via a malware warning for three days …
"pen new laws and regulations"
Whether it is in China or in any other country that already has an extensive legal library to deal with publishing issues, I simply cannot understand why the fact that a publication is online makes so much difference that entirely new laws need to be written.
I can understand that some laws may need to be amended, and maybe some explanation added to some other laws, but entirely new laws ? That would be like making new rules for road security because of TipTronic gear-changing.
Any time I hear of a law being specifically written to control publication on the Internet, I hear of a law that is redundant, not thought through, unnecessarily restrictive, incompetently worded, much too focussed in its action and most probably misses some major point.
Laws like that get struck down as soon as reason once again prevails.
I hate to be a language cop, but
hypocrisy is not irony. The irony (verbal division) is in the title (People's Daily), while the hypocrisy is in the content. To further illustrate, here are two others using the same formulae: New York Times, The Economist.
Why can't Google et al just...
...block ALL of china?
"This country may have malicious software, which might damage your computer,"
Another country that is criminalising activities legal in other countries. I hope we don't sign an American-style rapid extradition agreement with them...
This is what happens when a communications network spans multiple countries or, more importantly, cultures and religions. What is accepted practice in one is rude, immoral or illegal in another.
How about a UN bill of human rights as a starting point. Oh, hang on, that'll take years to agree and then half the nations won't sign. Hmm, think I'mm turning into a troll feeder.
@ Tam Lin
Sorry Tam but this is the very definition of irony, the world greatest censor complaining of censorship!
Maybe they are just confused
".....might violate the rights of Chinese authors."
China worried about copyright?? Hahahahahaha!
hello kettle, it's pot on line 2
that is all
Glad to see you can get onto El Reg from your cosy government office in Beijing.....
Talking about the country which may have malicious software, which might damage your computer... Why can't Google just block all of the America too? Not much would be missing, woudn't it. Oh wait, where would Lester then get his pron?
Nothing wrong ...
"It also claims the site's security technicians found nothing wrong with the site"
Of course there's nothing wrong with the site. All goverment approved malware and international attack software is present and correct.
"Google has maliciously blocked the channel in retaliation."
Hey Peoples Daily! Grow the fuck up and stop being so childish, clearly this is an automated system, it's there to stop malware, and it prolly found some on their site, they prolly wrote it ffs, it's not like China has never been linked with state sponsored spyware before is it!?!?
I know how to get this page blocked in China
All I need to do is blatantly talk about the one-night stands, wife swapping and the sexual abuse that I regularly get up to in my love-dungeon.
Obviously a mention or two of extreme violence that shows a complete disregarded common decency and in-depth discussion of goatsex would also help.
comedy routines... still kicken..
Ha... the Nazi's and Commies are still at it..... keystone cops.
- Review Reg man looks through a Glass, darkly: Google's toy ploy or killer tech specs?
- MEN WANTED to satisfy town full of yearning BRAZILIAN HOTNESS
- +Comment 'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
- Nokia: Read our Maps, Samsung – we're HERE for the Gear
- Ofcom will not probe lesbian lizard snog in new Dr Who series