Talk:Anti-censorship developers targeting China's "Great Firewall"

Right, there's a big misleading bit about a "secure financial network", this uses the plain old Internet. It just sends requests to port 443, same as a https:// request. These are used for online shopping applications and online banking. I'd guess the theory behind this approach is you can't block traffic to that port without interfering with Internet commerce.

What is not made clear is how people are going to use this in the West, that's where the key software component has to be installed. If you do not have a fixed IP address, then you're constantly going to have to tell people the address for your machine. You're also going to have to leave it on when the people in China or Saudi Arabia need it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read a fair bit of the stuff linked to from the Wikipedia article, this is going to be a pain to use for people not on a fixed IP address. If your IP address is leased to you, then it is likely different every time you start a session on the Internet. Many ISPs also force disconnections to people who have very long sessions so they have problems running servers such as this proxy. For example, my current IP address is 213.193.176.92 and I'd have to send that to my friend in oppresive China so they could use my connection today. If it was 213.193.176.98 tomorrow, I'd have to send it again.

Here's another issue with this, is what the domain name entries for domestic internet connections are. There already exist spam blacklists that contain most of the end-user IP space, the presumption there is the only mail originating from these locations is from spam Zombies. The Chinese could simply start using these lists to block traffic to port 443 and the proxy would cease to be useful unless people could run it at work. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The two issues you address are solved by establishing a DNS entry for a dynamic IP and having the end-user access DNS servers which are on fixed IP addresses. As for how to block the use of these dynamic IP servers, let's leave that up to the Chinese government to discover. Karen 01:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Burma vs Myanmar

While we do have a category Burma, all other articles have called it category Myanmar and made reference to the name change by the Junta. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Different metaphor

The David and Goliath metaphor is used in the source, it is asymmetrical warfare which is most commonly represented in this way. How about like the people of Lilliput taking on Gulliver? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Languages

According to the report on the project from 2004, it is available in Norwegian, Persian, Spanish, Italian, French, English, Russian, Romanian, and Simplified Chinese. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article is strongly anti-Chinese. The Chinese government does not block all sites with information on Human Rights and the Falun Gong movement is controversial in and of itself. The POV of this article is in question as it is taken almost verbatim from the Toronto Star article which is also biased. 21:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any actionable objections. The tagger is being inflammatory and insulting by using the term "anti-Chinese" when the article says nothing about the Chinese race. I am removing this tag until an actionable objection is raised. Neutralizer 23:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The "actionable" part is to edit the story to list a narrower scope of topics/sites censored by the Chinese government - or perhaps just list a few specific representative examples of what is being censored. The objection is that the story states too large a scope of censorship, when it needs to be more specific. Karen 01:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Karen fixed it; any objections to tag removal? Neutralizer 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As Karen states, my objection was the line "China blocks countless websites such as Falun Gong, a spiritual movement banned in China. Anything on democracy and human rights is apparently off-limits." which is debateable and therefore should be qualified with ""s from Andrew Chung’s article or more precisely and accurately presented. I was not attempting to be insulting to the Wikinews community, only direct. I have changed the passage. If no one objects to the alteration I remove my objection to this article. 07:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think your edit is ok. Maybe you should be a wikinewsie with your own nick ;) international 08:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with International; your observations were very helpful; please help us more. Neutralizer 13:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)