So Openstreetmap must be illegal in China!
And indeed it is: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China
Of course that doesn't stop people from mapping every bench in China https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=China#map=3/33.99...
And indeed it is: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/China
Of course that doesn't stop people from mapping every bench in China https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=China#map=3/33.99...
In any case, according to Wikipedia, open-source code is available to convert between WGS-84 and the obfuscated GJC-02 coordinates.
Since technology seems to have caught up with it, is there any advantage (military or otherwise) for China to persist with obfuscation? Much like the US gave up on GPS "selective availability" years ago, there would seem now days to be more economic advantage to ditching obfuscation than there is security advantage of keeping it. Is not as if the missiles of China's enemies are going to get confused by China's obfuscated coordinates.
Is it just because of inertia that GJC-02 still exists?
Does the CCP really think that the US military are going to use ordinary street msps to target their missiles and that this obfuscation will protect them from on-target hits? Sure, in WWII there were a few apocryphal instances of bad maps foiling an attack, but that was decades before mapping satellites.
As mentioned, it's been a long time since the US stopped limiting GPS resolution. This just makes CCP seem backward.
US allegedly used old map with wrong coordinates. Probably China knows well about US military tactics.
It's just an economic policy to help local mapping tech get good without international competition, and to control access to information by channeling it through domestic state-controlled enterprises.
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/military-history/2018...
In some cases using consumer-level street maps could make for more accurate targeting.
Many years ago I worked on command & control systems for a US military contractor. The mapping imagery our software used from military mapping providers were high resolution but often more out-of-date than commercial offerings. One example a warfighter showed me stuck with me because it was particularly embarrassing and egregious -- military imagery showed an area with a handful of shacks in the middle of the desert but Google's satellite imagery showed that it had become a sprawling town. Because of issues like that, army warfighters were forced to regularly cross-check with Google and/or Yahoo! maps when planning operations.
It is no longer an area I work in and I would expect that military imagery is now more up-to-date, but there are likely still datapoints uploaded to OpenStreetMap that are more timely and accurate than what government contractors provide. So I would not be surprised if there are still warfighters out there cross-checking with consumer mapping providers before ordering strikes.
So in general the commercial stuff is better, but in the specifics the military stuff will come out on top, depending on what the mission is and how much anyone cares about it.
If Google cared enough, I'm sure they could find a solution - since Google doesn't operate in China, they don't really have to respect Chinese laws. But Google doesn't operate in China so they don't care that much and are presumably happy to leave things the way they are.
Also, keeping things the way they are keeps drawing attention to the issue, which is probably better than to try and cover it up.
I suspect that in practice that’s not true; there are a lot of ways China could make life difficult for a big international tech company, from looking the other way regarding IP theft to arresting people associated with Google on spying charges when they’re there on personal trips
This isn't the first time they have done something like this, Germany was stuck with Street View imagery from 2008 (and limited to larger cities) until some time last year when they decided to finally start updating it again. This was due to some privacy hubbub back when StreetView was introduced that resulted in a law allowing building owners and/or inhabitants to request that their building be blurred on StreetView. Mind you, this law didn't forbid StreetView, but it looks like Google just lost interest, or decided to wait it out...
Well, they buy the data from one of the few blessed Chinese companies, which is a form of doing business, and regardless what Chinese law says Google has most likely a contractual obligation not to convert the data. In other words, if they did convert the data they'd probably not get updates anymore.
Google search may not operate in China, but that doesn't mean that we have no business or service presence in China. For instance, from 2017 up until 2022, Google Translate was available in-country [0].
[0] https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-china-social-...
It would be telling if despite that rejection, they were still open to taking direction from Beijing. Google at one point was fairly friendly with US DoD. Clearly the national loyalty of multinationals isn't guaranteed.
https://www.google.cn used to show censored search results, now it only has a link to https://www.google.com.hk , which is blocked because it lacks search result censorship. But Google could use the domain for something new in the future should they choose to.
In particular, Google Ads continue to be available: https://ads.google.cn They even offer WeChat customer service!
As long as they can keep the ad money flowing, Google will comply with all necessary laws and regulations.
I don't think so but it would be an embarrassment for the government to admit it no longer serves a use and such an action would be anathema to them.
And to answer your question, it's because anyone proposing to break away from the current model will be accused of being a Western agent.
Probably just China suffering from the same problem most of the world has, boomers that don't really understand technology running the government.
> Is it just because of inertia that GJC-02 still exists?
That could also be part of the problem, the 14 companies that currently provide all mapping services in China, and everyone who uses their services, would have to convert to WGS-84. No doubt those companies will do everything they can to keep the law as it is.
Back when the decision was made, most of the people running the government had studied engineering. A very common pattern in all industries in China are laws that ultimately lead to protectionism by forcing foreign companies to only work with local partners. This is exactly the consequence of this law. I'd be very surprised if that was not intended by law makers from the get go.
Standard issue Chinese protectionism, they do this with basically every industry. Create a problem and then only allow CCP-approved organizations to solve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbid...
Unless of course, if the camera gets too close to (say) a military/civil defense installation (often includes their office buildings), their security will probably do a check or just ask people to leave. They usually setup a sign near by to indicate "No trespassing" and maybe "No photographing" etc, just don't bring the camera over the line (I mean, better stay out completely if it says "No trespassing").
However, for the Camera which have GPS module, you will need additional filing to license your product. So some of the companies just hide the feature.
Clearly it is not "must have GPS removed".
Thanks for the additional info.
Of course, some of those devices get through, or are carried in by tourists, or are enabled by enthusiasts who load the non-China firmware. This seems to be understood. The Chinese are smart enough, one presumes, to know that actual state-level competitors can get accurate (in the chosen geodetic system) location data without relying on tourists' geotagged Google Photos uploads.
But that does lead to the question, "why, then?" -- if your adversaries know your secret, it's probably not worth the effort of protecting, anymore. (And why, in the US, we know about stuff like VENONA now.) The Chinese seem focused on a different threat: they don't care if a few people have good location data, even if some of them work for the US NGA, they just don't want everyone to have that data.
Which is interesting, because it suggests that that they're less concerned about a foreign government with strategic intelligence, than they are their own domestic population.
This isn't about state secrets vs other states; it's about denying their own population a capability that they find valuable, and thus threatening.
When you are a nobody, they wont care. When you are a person of interest this law will be applied to you.
If they want you are just a tourist, otherwise you are a spy who took 5000 photos.
The reality, of course, is that the people end up giving control and ownership to a one-party state.
The four remaining Marxist-Leninist states are China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Marxi...)
In 2024, their Freedom Indices (out of 100) are:
China: 9
Cuba: 12
Laos: 13
Vietnam: 19
It's become it's own thing because anything "communist" is just lip service at this point. Public veneration of past Chinese empires and dynasties is way more common than some idealized view of a proletariat state.
Same with Vietnam (basically a crony capitalist country) and Laos (basically a buffer between Thailand, VN, and China where all three meddle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Marxi...
Also the page on China, which states the government is a "Unitary Marxist–Leninist one-party socialist state"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd be interested to see how that edit would be received by other editors of the page.
It's basing "Marxist-Leninist" on national constitutions, which themselves are de facto useless when the Politburos in China, Vietnam, and Laos make drastic policy changes every decade (eg. 10 years ago it was expected for Chinese Premiers to step down after a 10 year term). Also, that list doesn't seem to actually link sources to assertions.
The CCP's charter calls itself "Marxist-Leninist" but every single "thought"/ideology pushed by the CCP's leadership when a new Premier arises is de facto diametric to Marxism-Leninism, and it has always been this case since Mao.
I recommend reading "The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976–1992" by Yan Sun , "A Nation-state by Construction: Dynamics of Modern Chinese Nationalism" by Suisheng Zhao, and "China: Development and Governance" by Yongian Zheng and Gunwu Wang if you want to actually understand the ideological underpinnings of Chinese governance.
I have Chinese language sources as well I'd recommend but that's a whole other issue.
> I'd be interested to see how that edit would be received by other editors of the page
Just like they taught all of us from elementary school to college - Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source.
Wikipedia should always be used to spark conversations, but it is up to you to actually use Primary and Secondary sources to validate whether content on Wikipedia is valid or not.
Wikipedia as an editorial organization has a lot of issues, internal rivalries, and astroturfing (especially w/ regards to highly controversial topics such as Asian politics).
As such, it's best to use Primary and credible Secondary sources.
I cannot access BBC in China without using a VPN, and can potentially be prosecuted for either action.
I can say Biden/Trump are horrible and need to rot in jail, and my comment with not be deleted by a censor. If I say "Xi dada needs to step down and Li Keiqiang should have been Premier instead, and HK was never an integral part of China" it will get deleted on Sina, and if they really had it out for me prosecute me under NSL.
I can Google for Jan 6th photos without censorship. I cannot Baidu search photos of the Tiannamen square protests and subsequent massacre.
The freedom house index does have issues, but China is absolutely unfree.
Authoritarian states aren't completely unfree (it's organizationally impossible), but China is definetly fairly unfree compared to other authoritarian states like Russia or even Vietnam (though Vietnam is trending towards a more authoritarian future now that Tô Lâm is almost assured to be the next leader)
It might still be a bad idea to remove them, but if they were just doing standard protests in public areas, it'd be much less of an issue.
Absolute unfreedom also exists nowhere.
Still, some places are more free than others. alephnerd made a number of comparisons of the US to China; you have refuted none of them. You merely complain that the US is not absolutely free of consequences for your actions. Well, that's true, but if that's what you're looking for, try an uninhabited island (and you may not even find it there).
Merely arresting people and forcing them out of the square would've meant it would be a blip in history. The Tiananmen Square massacre is famous because it was a massacre. Even official figures said that hundreds of people died.
Police will inevitably crack down on protests everywhere, yet protests continue to happen on a daily basis in the US with minimal long term ramifications.
Also, none of what you pointed out actually refutes my points above about internet censorship, and as such clearly shows an attempt at whataboutism.
P.S. Both HRW [2] and Amnesty [3] have unequivocally voiced their support for the right to protest in the US, and as such if you try to say "oh human rights organizations are a tool of the west" it's complete bullshit.
[0] - https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/01/26/china-free-white-paper-p...
[1] - https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa17/3086/2020/en/
[2] - https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/04/26/us-universities-should-r...
[3] - https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/amnesty-internatio...
Wow, what a shocker. Next you're gonna tell me that the democracy indices people use come only from democracies.
Economic freedom is freedom.
In socialism and communism, only the state can own the means of production.
You mentioned cooperatives. This is tangential to the discussion as cooperatives are neither socialist nor capitalist, per se. They can freely exist in capitalist societies, and also in some socialist societies (although they are often tightly controlled by the state, and may be seized by the state).
Cooperatives are a socialist proposal. A country run solely by cooperatives is not a capitalist country.
You say the owners are “leeching” from workers. Sounds like they have it easy, right? So - become an owner! I think you’ll find building a company, employing people and taking on all the financial risk of doing so is harder than you thought. Perhaps if you give it a try, you’ll understand why company owners get the rewards they do.
You confuse legal possibility with real possibility. By the law and social norms, nothing forbids me from levitating in the street. Likewise, nothing forbids a worker to become a bourgeoisie. Sorry, but most people cannot start their own company. And the few that can, will be just providing services for the margins of the market, where the real big companies do not operate because it is not profitable enough. Doing this, they will keep needing to work like any other worker, in contrast with the burgoisie.
> You say the owners are “leeching” from workers. Sounds like they have it easy, right? So - become an owner!
Again the confusion with "legally allowed" with "real possibility". Contrary to most burgoisie, I did not inherited a lot of capital and money. So I cannot become part of the burgoisie, except with negligible probability. Even if the law does not forbid me (likewise, the law is not forbidding me to transform into a dinosaur).
> employing people
This is not a favor. They employ so that they can leech the fruits of other people's labor, and pay for them less than what they produced. A slave owner also provides an "employment" for his slaves, do you think this is a favor? The owner cannot produce without the workers. But workers can produce without the owner (like in a cooperative). The workers are the ones that are doing a "favor" to the owner.
> taking on all the financial risk
This is ridiculous. In capitalism, both the owner as the worker are sellers. The first has its company and sells what it produces. The second sells his labor force. Both of them can fail to sell their products and face risks: if the worker fails to sell his product, he becomes unemployed, and face risks like suffering hunger, dying of sickness because cannot afford treatment, and living in misery. If the owner fails to sell his product, the company fails, and the risk is losing some money, but not all the money because it is invested in lots of different companies. The worker deal with much more financial risks than the owner.