Hacker News Reader

Comment by zhte415 | Hacker News Reader

China's firewall is largely constructed to create technology transfer towards China.

This may be in the form of hindering sales for comapanies they may have interesting opportunities for investment, from sports shoes to embedded microchips, to financial products.

It is also part of a much greater Golden Shield network.

But a lot has changed over the past 5 years. A contrast of goals/objectives: the Golden Shield formerly largely about public security and media control, a network prided under the former premier (national harmony being the end-game), but now goals are much, much, more nationalistic at a strategic level across China.

View on HN

> China's firewall is largely constructed to create technology transfer towards China.

That's been a huge effect of the GFW, but is there material indicating it was the original purpose? My understanding was that much of the explosion in Chinese censorship tech happened as a way to prevent social media from gaining control over the news cycle. (i.e., when a train wreck occurs, the Party prefers stick-to-the-facts news coverage over whose-to-blame social media mobs)

Original purpose? Multifaceted, but certainly not just internet focused, it was a part of a much bigger thing (Golden Shield) that involves submitting photocopies of IDs to get a mobile phone SIM to an urban alley-way with CCTV and a cartoon of a friendly cop pasted on the wall.

>when a train wreck occurs, the Party prefers stick-to-the-facts news coverage over whose-to-blame social media mobs

combating whose-to-blame scaremongering isn't in the GFW's scope, as in regarding blocking foreign access, but is in the grey area with the rest of Golden Shield, such as requiring ICP licences in order to host a website. Today, however, Golden Shield is pretty mature, high-speed train-wrecks being covered by diggers is generally accepted as not OK, and most of the action happens on WeChat anyway with gov't ID papers issued to get a SIM, therefore a number, therefore a WeChat account.

A huge amount of fraud happens on WeChat, despite these paperwork needs.

> a much bigger thing (Golden Shield) that involves submitting photocopies of IDs to get a mobile phone SIM

I can assure you this is not current Chinese policy.

>> a much bigger thing (Golden Shield) that involves submitting photocopies of IDs to get a mobile phone SIM

> I can assure you this is not current Chinese policy.

It is the law: to get a SIM card, must submit ID card scan or passport scan.

The law, and how it is applied are 2 different things. Especially in an authoritarian state.

Last time I was in China (late 2014) I had to provide a photocopy of my Australian passport to obtain a China Mobile SIM. Maybe it's changed since then, but I certainly can't imagine them being any more liberal than Australia, where you are required to submit a driver's licence number or a similar level of identity verification in order to activate a prepaid SIM.

That said, I can't imagine it being too hard to bribe someone to get a SIM not linked to an ID if you really wanted...

You can easily buy a mobile SIM on the street without showing ID. No bribing involved.

Half a year ago in Shenzhen I did manage to buy a prepaid SIM card from a street vendor without showing any kind of identification whatsoever. I've heard about that law, and I know my friends had to show their passports to get SIM cards, but apparently the law isn't obeyed that much. Mind you - it wasn't some shady vendor, it was a random electronics store on a commercial street.

They threaten to shutdown your SIM eventually if they don't have an ID#/passport associated with it. But they are very bad about follow through.

I see. Well, it only had to last a month :).

You'd have to go multiple years for there to be any risk of shutdown at all. I've never even received a threat.

Speak of the devil:

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/984988.shtml

It is like they come up every year and say: "we are really going to do this now."

In India too, you need ID card to get sim card. And your sim card is activated after verification. In west you don't need to? How does Security agencies collect data? India is quite free albeit there's a recent surge of fascism.

Kenya too. You have to register your SIM card in order for it to be activated. Registration involves a form of ID (passport/birth certificate)

India is practically free, but technically not. We're hilariously stumbling into becoming a security state.

Its funny, even though it is so tragic.

I remember that you didn't need Govt ID to get a phone line, to enter an airport, or to get on a plane (you just needed the ticket hard copy).

I definitely remember a time when you didn't need Govt ID when you checked into a hotel! Now you do, and hotels have to keep copies of them.

There's been so many, many assaults on privacy in India, and no one to oppose it because Indian's inherently are fond of the idea of a parent state.

If its hard to believe a random person on the internet - consider that the Government of India recently argued that there is no right to Privacy in the constitution.

And Aadhar. Man, if you want to see a better example of "Not my Problem" and doublspeak, then look no further than our Biometric program.

Its like watching Kafka author history.

In the US, you don't need to give you passport/ID but a SSN is necessary if you want to finance it—which most people do. And that is the de-facto national identification number.

So while there are ways around it, most people are led to give that info up voluntarily.

This is an odd idea. I remember, after the explosions in Tianjin, the only place to find reasonably up-to-date information was on Chinese social media. The government wasn't saying much of anything, facts or blame-wise. Social media eventually sussed out (1) that there was massive negligence, which the government confirmed months later, and (2) one of the companies who was handling way more dangerous chemicals than it should have was operated by shadow-CEOs and may have been getting around regulations by being controlled by a former Tianjin dock safety manager. I still have no idea if the second one was ever proven, but I suspect it's true. And if censorship was meant to prevent blame-game stuff, there's no way so many people would have used social media to figure that out (on the other hand, this is one of those scenarios where the people and the government are generally in agreement -- the people who let that happen were never going to get any leniency from the government).

>when a train wreck occurs, the Party prefers stick-to-the-facts news coverage over whose-to-blame social media mobs

Why would you assume this, when far more self-interested motives seem obvious?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com