Google breaks through China’s Great Firewall but only for just over an hour | Hacker News Reader

Google breaks through China’s Great Firewall but only for just over an hour

scmp.com

73 pointsjacquesm26 comments

Guessing this wasn't intentional, though I'd be surprised if Google wasn't aware that Google Search was available and rolled it out without giving China a heads up.

As for China, can't believe they don't black list any TLD or sub-domain with Google in it; not that I'm for blocking Google, Google itself, etc.

Makes me wonder why someone doesn't just doesn't deploy it and give hints on "how to see beyond the Great Fire Wall"; fun fact, it's rumored that the average person has never heard of Tankman in China: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man

One thing I learned from this episode is that the GFW does not yet have the ability to automatically filter HTTPS traffic based on certificate signatures. Someone have suggested before and now we have some evidence that this is not the case.

P.S. Google is a prime candidate for this kind of filtering since they reuse one huge certificate containing almost every domain they use, despite maintaining an intermediate CA at the same time.

I couldn't read this article because the South China Morning Post website has been blocked by the Great Firewall for the past few months. Before that, though, I could only access about 5 (I think) stories a month from scmp.com because they had a paywall. What's the difference between a Firewall and a paywall from a user's point of view?

Great Fire Wall is controled via malware, backdoors, network filtering, etc.; sort of like security firewalls, but only if compared to what a company might do to enforce their policies for what employees are able to use the Internet for. Paywalls are just a pay for access method for making money from content, and unrelated to the topic; meaning it's not like in China there a secret backdoor for the top government officials to see the real Internet; oh, wait, there likely is... :-)

> Paywalls are just a pay for access method for making money from content, and unrelated to the topic

I asked what the difference between a Firewall and a paywall is "from a user's point of view". At various times and in different ways it's possible to bypass the Firewall depending on how much you want to pay, e.g. using VPN's, using proxies though there's less of them around nowadays, visiting Hong Kong, getting friends overseas to scrape and email content, and the Firewall seems to fail periodically, not just from the Google change last weekend but often for a minute here, an hour there, for different websites.

Right, though "paying" for access wasn't an official option, where paywalls are an official option; comparable to paying for VPNs to get around official Internet blocks would be more like paying for access to a file sharing site to download pirates content. There less and less "pay" options because China is getting better and better at blocking the Internet. Happy to clarify anything or try to answer any additional questions you might have.

> "paying" for access wasn't an official option

Official and unofficial are two ends of a long sliding scale. Many paywalled newsites allow unlimited access if the article is accessed through links from search engines. This is an "unofficial" option. Accessing American TV shows from within China is more "unofficial".

Firewalls are set up by those who claim ownership over the people using the net; paywalls are set up by those who claim ownership over the information being accessed. Not only do both those concepts of ownership sound suspect to me, but also from the user's POV the experience of a Firewall and a paywall on the official-unofficial spectrum is the same.

Edit: By "paying" I meant paying with money (e.g. VPN's), with time (e.g. a day in HK), with guanxi (e.g. friends scaping and emailing sites), etc.

Feel like you asked a question that at the very least doesn't express the issue you're facing to me, what exactly is the real problem that you personally are facing that's not overly broad; for example, how do I allow everyone in China to have access to anything on the Internet forever for free from anywhere? (Sorry, but just trying to be clear.) Also, paywalls might be defined as paid Internet access and those system often limit use of the Internet; this includes limiting access to content.

>What's the difference between a Firewall and a paywall from a user's point of view?

5 stories a month.

Paywalls prevent specific sources, Firewalls prevent specific ideas.

The difference is in the intention of the blocking.

Intention of the firewall is to block all your access to the content.

Intention of the paywall is to encourage you to pay for the access to the content.

The difference is also in the legal framework, especially for the people in China in case of the Great Firewall.

If you pay and pass the paywall, you have not done anything wrong in the eyes of the Chinese law (assuming that the content was not blocked by the Great Firewall).

Passing the Great Firewall might get you into the hot water.

A short while ago, I visited China for a week. Before my visit, I had dutifully downloaded the offline Mandarin files for Google Translate in my Nexus 5 in the hope of using it even when Google isn't available. But it was of no use because it still needed to contact Google for whatever reason and refused to do any voice/image translation.

Nice to hear the enthusiasm! Interesting transient experience to experience vicariously on this end of the web.

The title is very misleading by using word like "break through".

Also related, looks like China's finally cutting itself off the rest of the internet in the world....switching from blacklisting to whitelisting.

"The proposed rules would prohibit the country’s Internet-service providers from allowing connections to websites with domains, or Web addresses, registered outside China. Violators would face fines of up to 30,000 yuan ($4,621) and public notices exposing their failure to obey."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-seeks-more-legal-muscle-to...

That's so incredibly saddening. One of the greatest mediums for cultural exchange, possibly lopped off at the head before it could grow up.

I don't imagine it will happen in my lifetime, but I think there will be a time where China will want the rest of the world to understand them more than they want to block off the rest of the world. It's easy to think about government regimes in a polarised fashion - western democratic model: good, insular communist model: bad. In truth there is plenty of corruption to go around. Those in power find ways to stay in power for the long haul -- this is something all cultures share. The difference is how they do it.

As you say, the internet changes the world and I believe that it will create opportunities that even the most insular governments will not be able to pass up. It will take decades, but I think that it must happen. Our task in the meantime is to ensure that the internet stays functional. Things like strong encryption is vital. Probably net neutrality is a close second. Even in more open cultures, there are powerful forces trying to limit what the internet can be. As long as we can keep it unfettered in one place, I believe the benefits it brings will eventually draw everybody in. As such, my (unasked for) advice is not to worry too much about what China is doing and to concentrate on keeping the internet free where you are.

> > Our task in the meantime is to ensure that the internet stays functional ...

I'd add end-user control to your list, as archaic as that might sound these days. Centralized systems provide a single point of political pressure and of failure.

One of the things China is absolutely not interested in is cultural exchange. That brings with it the possibility of change and destabilisation.

The more these things happen the more you should see it as panic in the eyes of the current wielders of significant power in China. Controlling access to information like this is fundamentally incompatible with being a nation that trades with all of the world. Trade requires communication and (forgive the 'Chinese Math') a fraction of the Chinese population is in daily contact with the rest of the world.

It's a matter of time, really. How much I have no idea, they are doing what they can to abuse technology to fight this rearguard action, and what the fall-out will be like I have no idea about either, other than that it probably won't be pretty and that it will upset lots of applecarts, made in China and elsewhere.

What does this mean for common VPN providers?

Strictly speaking, not very much. This is basically rent seeking by domestic registrars under the disguise of censorship.

So the whitelisting is at the domain level, not IP?

(I couldn't access the article)

The law change basically forces sites serving a domestic audience to use a domestic domain registrar where the government has the legal authority to seize them when they wish to. There is already a whitelist system in place (ICP licensing) but site owners can always take their operations elsewhere as long as they retain control to the domain.

That said, it is vague enough that an IP whitelist can be inferred from a very liberal interpretation. The NYT writeup reiterates this point.

You have to wonder if it's actions like these that give cause for concern to the people of Hong Kong, who I'm sure will eventually have to comply with these restrictions.

China actions looks to me like a free trade violation and makes me question the point of the WTO. Perhaps we (US, EU) should apply sizeable customs to the goods from China?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com