ACTUALIDAD, ANALISIS, ASIA, CASO DE ESTUDIO, China, CIBERGUERRA, CIBERSEGURIDAD, INTELIGENCIA WEB, INTELIGENCIA WEB INTERNET, INTELIGENCIA WEB INTERNET, INVESTIGACION, INVESTIGACIONES, LEGAL, Search Historia

SOBRE GOOGLE & CHINA RPC: los wikileaks, links a noticias y un video

Wikileaks sobre China y Google y Noticias y comunicados

Gracias a Wikileaks. Les dedicamos este Video:

La Información es libre.

 

Al final las cosas se arreglaran.

Resultados de la búsqueda

  1. China sí dirigió el ataque a Google

    Pekín, lamenta, ya había ordenado a las tres compañías estatales de telefonía no colaborar conGoogle China, algo que suponía un daño considerable para el 

    China utilizó el código fuente de Microsoft en sus ataques a Google‎ – Silicon News
    China defiende el papel de Google pese a las revelaciones de Wikileaks‎ – Cinco Días
    China fue la causante de los ataques a Google‎ – UnderPC
    MuyWindows – EFE

  2. WikiLeaks: Ataque a Google fue hecho por China

    Revista Generacción – 30 Nov 2010

    Probablemente el que más nos interesa a todos los que estamos en contacto con la informática es el relacionado con el famoso ciber-ataque que Google y otras 

    EEUU cree que China condujo ataques informáticos contra Google‎ – AFP
    EEUU supo que Pekín estaba detrás de los ciberataques a Google‎ – elmundo.es
    Wikileaks confirma: China autorizó la intrusión en los sistemas ‎ – Silicon News
    Clarín.com – Publico.es
    todos los 125 artículos »

FYI
Wikileaks:
SUBJECT: GOOGLE CLAIMS HARRASSMENT BY CHINESE GOVERNMENT

1. (SBU) Summary. XXXXXXXXXXXXX claim the company’s services have been blocked by the Chinese government periodically over the past three years. After users reported on June 18 that Google.cm search engine was not filtering returns for pornographic sites, the government on June 24 again blocked the company’s services for 24 hours resulting in the loss of 20 percent of its traffic that day.XXXXXXXXXXXXX believe the real reason for the government’s wrath is the company’s refusal to remove a link to google.com from the google.cn website. They argue doing so would be in violation of a commitment the company made with Congress. End Summary.

2. (SBU) In conversations XXXXXXXXXXXXX told ADCM and EconOff that the Chinese government has been blocking several of Google’s Internet sites periodically for the past three years. They said the blocking and other harassment had intensified in June 2009, purportedly because of the search engine’s failure to filter some inappropriate or illicit content found on the web.

3. (SBU)XXXXXXXXXXXXX said that XXXXXXXXXXXXX a group of Chinese Internet users reported that Google.cn was not effectively filtering pornographic sites. XXXXXXXXXXXXX said Google China representatives were called to a meeting co-hosted by the State Council Information Office (SCIO, responsible for controlling Internet content), the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT, responsible for Internet technology and policy), and the Ministry of Public Security (MPS, responsible for Internet crime). The Ministries demanded Google provide better filtering on its Google.cn search engine and temporarily stop indexing sites outside of China. XXXXXXXXXXXXX The company refused this request.

4. (SBU) Google then experienced a wave of “attacks” in the media reporting that pornographic material could be found through the Google search engine. (Note: In the nine days following the June 18 incident, an incomplete list of reporting in the Chinese press contains 57 separate articles attacking Google. End Note). On June 24 servers in China were virally infected, causing them to redirect computers attempting to reach Google pages to an unknown web site. These attacks made Google services unavailable to many Chinese users for approximately 24 hours, and caused the company to lose 20% of its traffic on that day.

Lose the Google.com
——————-

5. (SBU) BothXXXXXXXXXXXXX believe the real reason for the government’s wrath is Google’s refusal to remove the link to Google.com from the Google.cn website.XXXXXXXXXXXXX explained that, when the company decided to enter the Chinese market, it testified before Congress that it would agree to censor its search results in China as required by Chinese law based on three principles. First, the company would not store private user information so as to avoid persecution of individuals based on their use of Google’s services. Second, the company would disclose to users when a search result had been censored. Third, Google would maintain a link from the Google.cn homepage to Google.com.

6. (SBU) According to XXXXXXXXXXXXX, from 2007 through 2009 Google received numerous informal inquiries from the Chinese government as to the possibility of removing the Google.com link. The company repeatedly explained that it could not, based on its promise to Congress. XXXXXXXXXXXXX said the government, for the first time, verbally requested the company remove the link. Google China explained removing the link was not required under Chinese law and reiterated that doing so would violate the company’s commitment. This was the first time the company had explicitly denied a government request, XXXXXXXXXXXXX stated.

Pulling Out an Option
———————

7. (SBU) XXXXXXXXXXXXX said the June 24 blocking of Google’s services is only the most recent of a three year history of blockings. He noted the company’s You Tube service has been entirely blocked since March 24. He believes the company is being harassed. XXXXXXXXXXXXX said the negative press coverage and service outages have caused the company to lose market share. XXXXXXXXXXXXXsays the company is regularly audited by tax authorities, and XXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXX said that, faced with the continual
BEIJING 00001957 002 OF 002
difficulties of doing business in China, the company may even consider pulling out of the market.

8. (SBU) Comment. Google is the only international search engine still doing business in China. It is an important symbol. If Google were forced to withdraw from the market, the move could attract heavy international attention. End Comment.

FYI

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BEIJING 007035

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/09/2032
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PROP CH
SUBJECT: OPEN BUT NOT TRANSPARENT: LOCAL REPORTERS
CRITICIZE 17TH PARTY CONGRESS MEDIA STRATEGY

REF: A. BEIJING 6606
¶B. OSC CPP20071019968173

Classified By: Political Internal Unit Chief Dan
Kritenbrink. Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).

Summary
——-

¶1. (C) Although the Communist Party employed a more
sophisticated media strategy during the 17th Communist
Party Congress October 15-21, local contacts tell us
they were disappointed with the Party’s tight
regulation of domestic coverage while the Congress was
in session. Press controls inside China were at least
as severe, if not slightly more so, than during the
16th Party Congress in 2002. Although reporters this
time were treated to more press conferences and
granted greater access to meetings and delegates,
journalists were given very little of substance to
report. Caijing, a magazine known for cutting edge
reporting, was denied press credentials altogether,
according to one contact. Some sources tell us,
however, that the Party leadership believes the
improved treatment of foreign journalists resulted in
more positive international coverage of the Congress.
End summary.

Access Versus Substance
———————–

¶2. (C) In the lead up to the 17th Communist Party
Congress, Chinese official media trumpeted the
unprecedented number of journalists, both foreign and
domestic, who had received credentials to cover the
event. Altogether, according to a Xinhua News Agency
report, the Party accredited 807 domestic and 1,135
foreign reporters, compared with 570 domestic and 840
foreign journalists for the 16th Party Congress in
¶2002. Xinhua also boasted about the greater number of
press conferences that took place on the margins of
the Congress and the expanded ability of journalists
to observe meetings and interview delegates. XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶3. (C) Local journalists generally agreed that while
Party propaganda officials went through the motions of
media openness, they offered reporters very little of
substance. The “unprecedented” access to delegates,
several contacts told us, amounted to little more than
listening to a wider array of Party leaders
robotically praise General Secretary Hu Jintao’s
political report. XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX told Poloff XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX that even though domestic journalists were granted
entree to more meetings than at previous Party
Congresses, the reporting they were actually allowed
to print was so restricted that the greater access did
not result in better coverage. XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX (protect) told Poloff XXXXXXXXXXXX
that he had originally wanted to skip covering the
17th Party Congress altogether. Domestic reporting of
the Congress was “meaningless,” XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

Press Controls at Least As Tight As 2002
—————————————-

¶4. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX that controls on domestic coverage of the
17th Party Congress were at least as tight, if not
more so, than they were during the 16th Party Congress
in 2002. The extent of these restrictions can be
seen, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, in the nearly identical front pages
Chinese newspapers printed October 23, the day after
the Party unveiled the new nine-member Politburo
Standing Committee (PBSC). Nearly every Chinese
paper, XXXXXXXXXXXX observed, ran “Hu Jintao Elected General

BEIJING 00007035 002 OF 003

Secretary” as the top headline. The Southern

SIPDIS
Metropolis News (Nanfang Dushi Bao) was the only paper
to push these limits by inserting some actual news
into its October 23 headline: “Still Nine Standing
Committee Members, Four Are New.” Had Chinese
journalists been allowed to report the unveiling of
the new PBSC as a real news event, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, then the
headlines would have been about the promotion of Xi
Jinping and Li Keqiang directly to the PBSC thus
bypassing the regular Politburo.

XXXXXXXXXXXX
——————————–

¶5. (C) While several media contacts have said that
press credentials for this latest Congress were easier
to obtain than in the past (Ref A), at least one
independent-minded publication was left in the cold.XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX

No Tears On CCTV
—————–

¶6. (C) China’s domestic media took to heart Party guidance
that news coverage remain upbeat and that negative
stories should be avoided (Ref A). XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX told Poloff XXXXXXXXXXXX
that some media outlets took these directives against
negative news to extremes. XXXXXXXXXXXX said his friends at
China Central Television (CCTV) told him that station
managers had banned all “negative” images from the
screen. During the Congress, CCTV would not show
images of people crying, regardless of the
circumstances. Even nature shows depicting animals
stalking and killing prey were cut because such scenes
were considered “inharmonious,” XXXXXXXXXXXX said.

Party Happy With International Coverage
—————————————

¶7. (C) Some contacts, however, said that the Party
Congress media strategy of keeping journalists busy
with press conferences and junkets (propaganda
officials took foreign journalists to visit the newly
constructed National Grand Theater as well as Olympic
sites) was effective in terms of managing
international coverage. Communist Party leaders, XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX said, are generally pleased with the
international coverage of the Congress. Overall the
international press was more positive than it was
during 16th Party Congress in 2002, XXXXXXXXXXXX commented,
with more focus on individual leaders and less on
factional infighting. XXXXXXXXXXXX said he gives the
Party Congress Media Center a grade of “90 percent”
for its management of the international press. XXXXXXXXXXXX
agreed with XXXXXXXXXXXX that international reporting was more
to the Party’s liking than in 2002. While reporters
for the Associated Press might have been upset with
the lack of substance, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, reporters from the
developing world were generally pleased with the cushy
treatment they received.

Internet Controls and Baidu Hijacking
————————————-

BEIJING 00007035 003 OF 003

¶8. (C) Contacts were nearly unanimous in their
assessment that Internet controls were extremely tigt
during the Congress. Popular websites scrubed their
chat rooms of even the most mildly negative or
sarcastic postings, several of our interlocutors told
us. Numerous foreign media outlets reported that on
October 18 Chinese Internet users conducting searches
using Yahoo and Google were redirected to the Chinese
search engine Baidu (Ref B). While many Beijing-based
contacts had not heard of these reports, Emboffs
experienced this hijacking phenomenon first hand both
in Beijing and in Chengdu. XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX (protect) told Poloff on XXXXXXXXXXXX that
certain Google searches had indeed been rerouted. For
example, typing in “Dalai Lama” would get you
immediately rerouted to Baidu, with a message that
“there is no information on your request.” Most
searches on Google, however, were not interfered with,
XXXXXXXXXXXX said. XXXXXXXXXXXX
told Poloff that Baidu has a bad reputation among
journalists because of its alleged kowtowing to
Chinese authorities. For example, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, a Baidu
search of former Party Secretary Jiang Zemin reveals
nothing but fawning news pieces. Baidu, XXXXXXXXXXXX said,
actually gets more freedom because of its close
relationship with the Chinese Government and thus is
the best search engine for searches using Chinese
characters. Google remains the best for English
searches, XXXXXXXXXXXX said.

“Depressing” State of Press Freedom
———————————–

¶9. (C) XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX told Poloff XXXXXXXXXXXX that the tight media
controls surrounding the Congress were expected but
“depressing” nonetheless. XXXXXXXXXXXX commented that no
information about internal Party deliberations was
revealed in the media and China’s press was devoid of
any real news during the Congress. “Even at the very
end, nobody knew for sure if the Standing Committee
would have nine or seven members,” XXXXXXXXXXXX said, “why must
all of this be kept so secret?” This information
control has had a dampening effect on public and
academic debate about policy directions China should
take, XXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXX told Poloff XXXXXXXXXXXX that he and other
liberal academics have had great difficulty in recent
months publishing “sensitive” articles, particularly
dealing with democracy and rule of law, as a result of
the Congress. However, XXXXXXXXXXXX said that even though
press controls remain tight, the Party has lost much
of its ability to set the public agenda. The
Communist Party can still control what is covered in
the media, XXXXXXXXXXXX said, “but they cannot dictate what
people care about.” XXXXXXXXXXXX
echoed this point, noting that the wider array of
media options now makes it easier for Chinese to tune
out Party Congress propaganda. “Rather than watch
CCTV coverage of the Congress,” XXXXXXXXXXXX said, “people can
now just switch to one of the 60 other channels
available.”

Advertisements
Standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s