It is just correction of a paper previously written by me.
Linhares 1 Renan Linhares Dr. Barlowe CS191-01 13 February 2020 Internet Censorship in China One of the biggest concerns of today’s society is having its access to information on the internet limited or controlled by an external agent. Several attempts (what has been attempted?) have been made or suggested. In addition, the internet has been growing alarmingly rapidly in recent years, generating too much data, and thanks to social media sites and Google, anyone with a computer and internet can access it freely with just one click. However, in order to do business in China, search engines and social networks are required by China’s government to limit access to information to its citizens. I support freedom of expression on the internet, and I believe that tThe government cannotshould restrict a person's access to words or images, because in most cases, their intention is to cover up the disclosure of human rights violations and other serious crimes. Currently, in China, most persecuted minorities are those of religious denominations. In the article “US calls China one of the worst regimes for human rights in 2018 due to abuse and torture of Uygur Muslims in Xinjiang” written by Jodi Xu Klein, it was reported that “the United States recognized China as the worst country on the planet in terms of respecting the basic human rights of its citizens in 2018.” More than two million Uygur Muslims in the northwestern Xinjiang Uygur were abused and tortured in that year. Those Muslims were arbitrarily placed in concentration camps in order to eradicate their religious traits, where many were tortured, abused, forced to work, and some are even killed. “Security officials in [China’s Uygur] camps Linhares 2 abused, tortured, and killed some detainees” US State Department report(The previous sentence is repetitive). In addition, people from Tibet and other Tibetan areas also suffered “repression of the freedoms of speech, religion, movement, and association.” The reports of those abuses were only possible because of the internet. However, nobody knows how (bad precisely-awkward) the situation is because China exercises strict control over the circulation of information. In addition to censoring access to websites, the Chinese government also prevents the search for specific terms on search engines, such as "free Tibet." Despite strong state censorship, there are alternatives for accessing blocked content, the most common being the use of VPN (Virtual Private Network) communication systems. This service can be used to interconnect two computers over the internet, allowing the creation of an anonymous network that protects the accessed content. Through this private network, constant changes are made to the computer's IP address, making it difficult to identify it with censorship programs. However, there is no way to estimate whether VPN networks are really secure, as the Chinese control system is complex and comprehensive. The State apparatus has strong possibilities of being able to invade these services, even making it possible to monitor the behavior of internet users. It is difficult to guarantee that these anonymous networks completely bypass state inspection. After all, this alternative to defrauding the system is widely known among the public. (is there a citation you could use for supporting this information?) Furthermore, if technology companies like Google or Facebook start to work with China’s government, things can get complicated. There are great rumors that there is control of access histories, e-mails, and other personal information. In most cases, this requires the collaboration of those companies. For example, in the article “China is making the internet less free, and US tech companies are helping” written by Shannon Liao, she reports that Linhares 3 It’s the fourth year in a row that Freedom House has ranked China at the bottom for internet freedom. But at the same time that China’s internet remains a walled garden, companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google are eagerly eyeing partnerships with Chinese businesses and increased expansion into the country. By not opposing China’s censorship policies directly and continuing to embrace the country, US tech companies are arguably legitimizing this restricted version of the internet that other countries are looking up to, Freedom House argues. One of the best-known cases of this privacy violation was the arrest of political dissident Wang Xiamong in 2002. The opposition official was jailed for ten years for a sentence based on classified data provided by Yahoo. After being severely criticized, the company apologized, including indemnifying the family members of Xiamong and another challenger, Shi Tao, who was also convicted in similar circumstances. Therefore, search engines and social media sites should not agree to work with the Chinese government in an attempt to restrict their citizens' free Internet access. In spite of China’s censorship of the internet, some people argue that each country in the world decides its laws and its regulations, and it should be respected. However, we cannot be confident that governments will always make fair laws. History is full of cases of authoritarian governments that used their powers to oppress and even decimate their people. The fact of China is an example. Since the triumph of the communists 70 years ago, the Chinese Communist Party has used its power to oppress and exploit the Chinese people. However, the popular pressure from citizens aware of China's attempt to censor the internet with the help of American companies has pushed them back. For example, “Google’s effort to create a censored search Linhares 4 engine for the Chinese market that enables state surveillance” has been terminated after intense pressure from human rights organizations and employees at the company. “Google should be fighting for an internet where information is freely accessible to everyone, not backing the Chinese government’s dystopian alternative” Joe Westby, Researcher on Technology and Human Rights. In a public letter addressed to the company's management, employees demonstrate their dissatisfaction with this project: Our opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be. The Chinese government certainly isn’t alone in its readiness to stifle freedom of expression, and to use surveillance to repress dissent. Dragonfly in China would establish a dangerous precedent at a volatile political moment, one that would make it harder for Google to deny other countries similar concessions. In conclusion, China’s attempt to restrict access to the internet has bad intentions. The intention is to prevent the disclosure of cases of human rights violations, including religious persecution, the internment of Muslims and Christians in re-education camps, and increased surveillance of their citizens. Although many assumed that China's rapid economic transformation would automatically lead to improvements in civil liberties and human rights, it has become more oppressive. Therefore, no American company should contribute, participate, or finance these censorship activities. Linhares 5 Works Cited Klein, Jodi Xu. “US Calls China One of the Worst Regimes for Human Rights in 2018.” South China Morning Post, 14 Mar. 2019, www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/3001594/us- calls-china-one-worst-regimes-human-rights-2018. Barboza, David. “Chinese Dissident, Jailed on Evidence Provided by Yahoo, Is Freed.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 31 Aug. 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/world/asia/wang-xiaoning-chinese-dissident-in-yahoo-case- freed.html. Employees, Google. “We Are Google Employees. Google Must Drop Dragonfly.” We Are Google Employees. Google Must Drop Dragonfly., Medium, 2 Jan. 2019, medium.com/@googlersagainstdragonfly/we-are-google-employees-google-must-drop- dragonfly-4c8a30c5e5eb. Liao, Shannon. “China Is Making the Internet Less Free, and US Tech Companies Are Helping.” The Verge, The Verge, 2 Nov. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/11/2/18053142/china- internet-privacy-censorship-apple-microsoft-google-democracy-report. GRADING: Organization: 4 Overall, good. Content: 2.5 The paper was quite short, considering that several long quotes were used. The paper had some great points that were articulated well, but a couple of major points were missing. What is Google’s motivation for working with China? Are there Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Linhares 6 security issues for others (such as Americans) with Google interacting with Chinese officials? In other words, what other actions may Google take to appease Chinese officials? What affect does this have on its public image? Do not use first-person, it weakens your argument. Grammar: 4 Overall, good. See above for any corrections. References: 2.75 There was one place above where a citation could have supported your position. You do not need to place everything obtained from a source in quotes. Often, paraphrasing (as long a citation is provided) can help integrate the information into the paper much more smoothly. 4*8 + 2.75*8 +4*4.5 +2.75*4 = 83 Formatted: Indent: Left: 1", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0" Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"