uk-flag

网络自由的真正敌人—中国、俄罗斯或美国?

2015-01-16 15:49 我要评论(0)

关键词:俄罗斯 美国 中国 敌人 网络

核心提示:中国和俄罗斯因为限制公民的网络访问而遭指责已无异议,但美国对数字主权的维护也愈发咄咄逼人。

Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US?

谁才是网络自由的真正敌人——中国、俄罗斯或美国?

Beijing and Moscow are rightly chastised for restricting their citizens’ online access – but it’s the US that is now even more aggressive in asserting its digital sovereignty

中国和俄罗斯因为限制公民的网络访问而遭指责已无异议,但美国对数字主权的维护也愈发咄咄逼人

Beijing has restricted Gmail's reach in China. Photograph: Sinopix/Rex Features

中国政府限制境内用户登陆使用Gmail邮箱。图片来源:英国SINOPIX图片/雷克斯图片社

Recent reports that China has imposed further restrictions on Gmail, Google’s flagship email service, should not really come as much of a surprise. While Chinese users have been unable to access Gmail’s site for several years now, they were still able to use much of its functionality, thanks to third-party services such as Outlook or Apple Mail.

最近有报道称,中国政府加强了对Google旗舰品牌 Gmail邮箱的使用限制,这个消息已经不会再让人感到意外了。几年前中国用户就无法登陆Gmail网页,但仍能使用它的大部分功能,多亏了像Outlook或苹果邮件这样的第三方服务。

This loophole has now been closed (albeit temporarily – some of the new restrictions seem to have been mysteriously lifted already), which means determined Chinese users have had to turn to more advanced circumvention tools. Those unable or unwilling to perform any such acrobatics can simply switch to a service run by a domestic Chinese company – which is precisely what the Chinese government wants them to do.

现在漏洞已经被补上(尽管只是暂时的——但一些新的限制已悄然出现),中国用户只有重新寻找更先进的翻墙工具了。那些不会或者不愿意翻墙的只能选择使用中国本土的电邮服务——这也正是政府所希望看到的。

Such short-term and long-term disruptions of Gmail connections are part of China’s long-running efforts to protect its technological sovereignty by reducing its citizens’ reliance on American-run communication services. After North Korea saw its internet access blacked out temporarily in the Interview brouhaha – with little evidence that the country actually had anything to do with the massive hacking of Sony – the concept of technological sovereignty is poised to emerge as one of the most important and contentious doctrines of 2015.

屏蔽Gmail邮箱是中国长久以来为保护自己的信息主权所采取的其中一项措施,有时只是短期内而有时则是长期的,为的是削弱其公民对于美国公司提供的通讯服务的依赖。在朝鲜因网络被临时切断引起舆论哗然后(尽管没有足够的证据证明朝鲜与骇客入侵索尼公司一事有关),一个新的概念——信息主权,将在2015年这一年成为最重要也是最有争议的一个议题。

And it’s not just the Chinese: the Russian government is pursuing a similar agenda. A new law that came into effect last summer obliges all internet companies to store Russian citizens’ data on servers inside the country. This has already prompted Google to close down its engineering operations in Moscow. The Kremlin’s recent success in getting Facebook to block a page calling for protests in solidarity with the charged activist Alexey Navalny indicates that the government is rapidly re-establishing control over its citizens’ digital activities.

不只是中国,现在俄罗斯政府也开始跟随中国(对网络监管)的做法。去年一项新法开始实行,规定所有网络公司必须将俄网民的个人数据保存在俄罗斯本土的服务器上。这一规定迫使Google停止了该公司在莫斯科的工程运营。最近,俄当局成功关停了一个Facebook主页,该主页呼吁人们抗议对激进分子阿里克谢•纳瓦林的指控。该做法表明俄政府正迅速地恢复对俄公民网络活动的监控。

But it’s hardly a global defeat for Google: the company is still expanding elsewhere, building communications infrastructure that extends far beyond simple email services. Thus, as South American countries began exploring plans to counter NSA surveillance with a fibre optic network of their own that would reduce their reliance on the US, Google opened its coffers to fund a $60m undersea cable connecting Brazil to Florida.

但这并不意味着Google在全球的溃败,该公司在其他地方仍在不断扩张,修建通讯基础设施而不仅仅只是提供电邮服务。因此,为摆脱美国国家安全局(NSA)的网络监控,南美国家正计划着开发自己的光纤网络以减少对美国的依赖。Google公司花费6000万美元重金打造的海底电缆把巴西和佛罗里达联在了一起。

The aim was to ensure that Google’s own services run better for users in Brazil, but it is a potent reminder that extricating oneself from the grasp of America’s tech empire requires a multidimensional strategy attuned to the fact that Google today is not a mere search and email company – it also runs devices, operating systems, and even connectivity itself.

该项目的本意是为巴西的Google用户提供更好的服务,但同时也是个有力的提醒:想要摆脱美科技帝国的控制,需要制订多元化战略。要知道,如今Google不仅仅只是一个提供搜索引擎和电子邮件服务的公司,它的经营范围还包括设备、操作系统和数据连接。

Given that Russia and China are not known for their commitment to freedoms of expression and assembly, it is tempting to view their quest for information sovereignty as yet another stab at censorship and control. In fact, even when the far more benign government of Brazil toyed with the idea of forcing American companies to store user data locally – an idea it eventually abandoned – it was widely accused of draconian overreach.

众所周知,中俄从未对公民的言论和集会自由做出过承诺,因此他们对信息主权的追求可以看做是(巩固)网络审查与监管的又一次尝试。其实(形象)更温和一些的巴西政府也曾动过强制美国公司将用户数据保存在本地服务器的念头,但因为管得太宽而遭到广泛批评,最终不得不放弃。

However, Russia, China and Brazil are simply responding to the extremely aggressive tactics adopted by none other than the US. In typical fashion, though, America is completely oblivious to its own actions, believing that there is such a thing as a neutral, cosmopolitan internet and that any efforts to move away from it would result in its “Balkanisation”. But for many countries, this is not Balkanisation at all, merely de-Americanisation.

不管怎样,中俄和巴西的行动是在回应美国的网络霸权。还是典型的美国方式,美国总是完全无视自己的行为,认为一个中立、大一统的网络世界是可行的,任何试图摆脱它的尝试将会导致这个大一统网络世界的“巴尔干化”。但对许多国家来说,这根本不是巴尔干化的问题,仅仅只是为了去美国化。

US companies have been playing an ambiguous role in this project. On the one hand, they build efficient and highly functional infrastructure that locks in other countries, creating long-term dependencies that are very messy and costly to undo. They are the true vehicles for whatever is left of America’s global modernisation agenda. On the other hand, the companies cannot be seen as mere proxies for the American empire. Especially after the Edward Snowden revelations clearly demonstrated the cosy alliances between America’s business and state interests, these companies need to constantly assert their independence – occasionally by taking their own government to court – even if, in reality, most of their interests perfectly align with those of Washington.

美国公司在这一项目[注:译者的理解是“建立一个中立、大一统的网络世界”]中扮演着极富争议的角色。一方面,他们建在其他国家里高效且功能强大的基础设施,使当地形成了强大的依赖性,如果要撤走这些基建,不仅麻烦还花费不菲。它们将美国的全球现代化议程输送至所到之处。而另一方面,这些企业不该只被视为美帝国的代理人。尤其是在斯诺登泄密事件发生后,美国商业与国家利益的愉快合作开始浮出水面。在这之后这些企业就要时不时的强调自己的独立性,有时候还会将自己的政府推到被告席,即便是这样,实际上它们的大多数利益还是与国家利益保持高度一致的。

This explains why Silicon Valley has been so vocal in demanding that the Obama administration do something about internet privacy and surveillance: if internet companies were seen as compromised parties here, their business would collapse. Just look at the misfortunes of Verizon in 2014: uncertain of the extent of data-sharing between Verizon and the NSA, the German government ditched its contract with the US company in favour of Deutsche Telekom. A German government spokesman said at the time: “The federal government wants to win back more technological sovereignty, and therefore prefers to work with German companies.”

这就能解释了为什么硅谷曾直言不讳地要求奥巴马政府在网络隐私保护与监管上要有所作为:如果互联网公司在(网络隐私保护与监管方面)做出让步,它们的生意就完蛋了。看看威瑞森无线通讯倒霉的2014年:因为不确定威瑞森无线通讯与美国国家安全局(NSA)的数据共享已经达到何种程度,德当局终止了与美国公司的合同,选择与德国电信进行合作。德政府发言人对此事的解释是:“联邦政府要收回更多信息主权,因此选择与德国本土公司进行合作。”

However, to grasp the full extent of America’s hypocrisy on the issue of information sovereignty, one needs to look no further than the ongoing squabble between Microsoft and the US government. It concerns some email content – relevant to an investigation – stored on Microsoft’s servers in Ireland. American prosecutors insist that they can obtain such content from Microsoft simply by serving it a warrant – as if it makes no difference that the email is stored in a foreign country.

然而,如果想全面的了解美国在信息主权上的虚伪,只需要看看微软与美国政府之间还没有停下的争吵就知道了。这次争吵和一些爱尔兰微软用户的电子邮件内容被卷入了一项调查有关。美国检察官坚持认为只要出示了搜查令就可以从微软获取这些电子邮件内容,即便这些数据是保存在国外的服务器上。

In order to obtain it, Washington would normally need to go through a complex legal process involving bilateral treaties between the governments involved. But now it wants to sidestep that completely and treat the handling of such data as a purely local issue with no international implications. The data resides in cyberspace – and cyberspace knows no borders!

为了获取这些邮件内容,正常情况下美国政府应该通过复杂的诉讼程序,还会涉及到政府之间签订的双边条约。但现在美国却想直接跳过这一步,彻底将这当成一个国内事务来处理,避开因此事造成的国际影响。这些数据被保存在网络空间——而网络空间是不分国界的!

The government’s reasoning here is that the storage issue is irrelevant; what is relevant is where the content is accessed – and it can be accessed by Microsoft’s employees in the US. Microsoft and other tech giants are now fighting the US government in courts, with little success so far, while the Irish government and a handful of European politicians are backing Microsoft.

美政府给的理由是这事与数据保存在哪无关,真正有关的是在哪儿能要到这些内容,而微软的员工在美国本土就能获取到这些邮件内容。微软和其他科技巨头联手与美国政府对簿公堂,并得到了爱尔兰政府和一小撮欧洲政客的支持,但至今看来收效甚微。

In short, the US government insists that it should have access to data regardless of where it is stored as long as it is handled by US companies. Just imagine the outcry if the Chinese government were to demand access to any data that passes through devices manufactured by Chinese companies – Xiaomi, say, or Lenovo – regardless of whether their users are in London or New York or Tokyo. Note the crucial difference: Russia and China want to be able to access data generated by their citizens on their own soil, whereas the US wants to access data generated by anybody anywhere as long as American companies handle it.

总之,美政府坚持认为,只要是美国公司的数据,不管保存在哪里(美政府)都有权拿到它。如果是中国政府要求从小米或者联想的设备上获取那些伦敦、纽约或是东京用户的数据,不妨想象一下,此举将会给中国招来多强烈的抗议?记住(两边)最主要的差异:中俄想要的是由境内居民产生的数据;而美国想要的是美国公司所掌握的全部数据,不论何人何地。

In opposing the efforts of other countries to reclaim a modicum of technological sovereignty, Washington is likely to run into a problem it has already encountered while promoting its nebulous “internet freedom” agenda: its actions speak louder than its words. Rhetorically, it is very hard to oppose government-run digital surveillance and online spin in Russia, China or Iran, when the US government probably does more of it than all of these countries combined.

在反对其他国家为收回部分信息主权所作的努力时,美政府有可能遇到和它在推行模糊的“互联网自由”议程时一样的问题:事实胜于雄辩。在俄罗斯、中国或者伊朗,想要反对政府运作的数字监控和网络带倾向的报道确实很困难,但在美国(政府运作的数字监控和网络带倾向的报道)可能比上述三个国家加起来还要多。

Whatever motivates the desire of Russia and China to exert more control over their digital properties – and only the naive would believe that they are not motivated by concerns over domestic unrest – their actions are proportional to the aggressive efforts of Washington to exploit the fact that so much of the world’s communications infrastructure is run by Silicon Valley. One’s man internet freedom is another man’s internet imperialism.

不管是什么激起了俄罗斯和中国对其数字产业加强控制的想法(只有天真的人才会相信他们加强网络控制并不是因为担心国内骚乱),他们的行为是与美国的咄咄逼人成正比的,同时也揭示了一个事实,即世界上竟然有这么多的通讯基础设施都是由硅谷运营的。一方所号称的网络自由,对另一方来说就是网络霸权主义。

以下是英国网友评论:

★So what was your answer?

所以作者你的答案是什么?

The author seemed to go around in circles, only to end up saying, 'I dislike the US.'

这个作者似乎一直在卖关子,直到最后才表明了态度,“我讨厌美国”。

That's what I got out of this article as well.

这也是我从这篇文章得到的结论。

All of them.

(中美俄)三个都是。

No point in trying to help you figure it out then... move along, there's nothing for you here.

没必要去帮你弄懂它…走开吧,这里没你什么事了。

And with very good reason

但是(作者给出的讨厌美国的)理由很棒。

garri. solving the problems of the world is probably beyond the reach of this one article, perhaps you could think of some answers yourself, the conclusion I came to is that the US is what it accuses others of being, only worse. "Note the crucial difference: Russia and China want to be able to access data generated by their citizens on their own soil, whereas the US wants to access data generated by anybody anywhere as long as American companies handle it."

(回复_garrilla)这只是一篇文章,指望它来解决问题不大可能,你可以有自己的答案。我从这篇文章得到的结论是美国总是在指责其他国家,但实际上它的所作所为更可恶。[引用原文 :“记住(两边)最主要的差异:中俄想要的是由境内居民产生的数据;而美国想要的是美国公司所掌握的全部数据,不论何人何地。”]

The question isn't as much access, as blocking access. All governments want to access information in connection with criminal investigations. China and Russia want to block the general public's access to information.

但问题不在获取上,而是在阻止获取上。在刑事侦查中所有政府都想要获取信息。中国和俄罗斯想要阻止普通百姓获取信息。

Wrong about Russia , they want their people to observe the actions of the U.S. the world over. Know your enermy.

作者对俄罗斯的描述是错的,它想要俄百姓看看美国在全世界的所作所为。搞清楚谁才是你的敌人。

Which is not unreasonable if someone in the West is involved in informational war with those countries.

Or if someone is using Internet to incite and manipulate events as it happened in Egypt and other countries of "Arab spring."

如果有西方人被卷入与中俄美的信息战,这种情况也不是不可能发生。有人利用网络进行煽动和操纵集会,就像埃及和其他国家的“阿拉伯之春”运动那样,也是有可能发生的。

[The author seemed to go around in circles, only to end up saying, 'I dislike the US.'...]

He did not actually say that now did he? Perhaps you could try reading the article again, slowly, try using a dictionary for some of those difficult words and failing that you could ask your mum or dad to explain it to you.

[引用评论:这个作者似乎一直在卖关子,直到最后才表明了态度,“我讨厌美国”。]

实际上(作者)并没有这么说,不是吗?也许你该再读一遍文章,读慢点,如果有不懂的单词可以查下字典,还是不行的话可以让你爸妈解释给你听。

[The author seemed to go around in circles, only to end up saying, 'I dislike the US.']

It's the Guardian. What did you expect?

[引用评论:这个作者似乎一直在卖关子,直到最后才表明了态度,“我讨厌美国”。]

这是《卫报》。还有什么好指望的。

Nailed it.

一语中的。

[The author seemed to go around in circles, only to end up saying, 'I dislike the US.' ]

Of course. That is, after all, The Guardian's raison d'être. The predictability is quite comforting, actually. It knows its audience after all.

[引用评论:这个作者似乎一直在卖关子,直到最后才表明了态度,“我讨厌美国”。]

当然了。毕竟这是《卫报》存在的理由。早就料到会这样了。《卫报》很懂读者的心理。

Ethel the reason your question has not been answered is probably because you are reading the wrong article, this article is about "Russia, China and Brazil ... responding to the extremely aggressive tactics adopted by none other than the US."

(回复Ethelunready)你的问题没有得到解答的原因很有可能是你读错文章了,这篇文章是关于“中俄和巴西…对美国侵略性策略的回应”。

No, he does not. He makes a very good case that de-Americanisation of the Internet is a) inevitable and b) right. That there will be howls of protest and indignation from across the pond is both predictable and immaterial.

不,他并没有说(那句话)。他举了一个很好地例子来证明互联网去美国化既是必要也是正确的。即使对岸那边会传来一阵阵带着抗议和愤怒的声浪,对此人们已经早有预料也不会太在意。

Well, I got more out of it.

While I cringe at the Internet censorship in China and Russia, plus being disgusted of NSA overreaching our privacy, I did not know the extend of the data imperialism by the US.

A very good article, informative and concise, at least for me. And yes, I hope very good lawyers can take it up to the different governments, and tell them that the right to privacy has become a human right in the 21st century.

额,好吧,我从这篇文章读出的信息更多些。

我对中国和俄罗斯的网络审查制度感到很不安,美国国家安全局(NSA)对我们隐私的侵犯让我很恶心,我不知道美数据帝国的触角到底有多长。

这是一篇好文章,信息量大但是简明扼要,至少我是这么觉得的。当然了,我希望有律师能把这篇文章带到各个政府让他们瞧瞧,告诉他们隐私权也是21世纪的一项人权。

[China and Russia want to block the general public's access to information.]

And the U.S. doesn't?

[引用评论:中国和俄罗斯想要阻止普通百姓获取信息。]

难道美国就没有吗?

[Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US?]

this is the Guardian. I'll give you one guess.

[引用标题:谁才是网络自由的真正敌人——中国、俄罗斯或美国?]

这就是《卫报》风格。《卫报》:我让你们来猜猜看。

You're right. There is nothing here. I don't think I've ever read an article that made such a grand sweeping premise and then went on to back it up with nothing. And in just a few short paragraphs.

This is definitely an issue worth knowing more about. Balkanisation? Love to hear about it. The US government "probably does more of it than all of these countries combined." Well, I guess that settles that.

The Guardian should be able to do better than this weak effort.

你说得对。这里[注:指文章]啥也没有。这篇文章先设定了一个宏大的前提,吸引人往下读却发现很空洞,以前我都没碰到过这样的文章。而且文章篇幅太小,只有寥寥数段。

这里有一个问题很值得探究。巴尔干化?愿闻其详。[引用原文:美国“(政府运作的数字监控和网络带倾向的报道)可能比上述三个国家加起来还要多。”]好吧,我猜“巴尔干化”能解决这个问题。

《卫报》本该做得比这更好。

That the Internet should be de-Americanized and the relative lack of online freedom of expression in China and Russia are two separate issues, and the author is disingenuous in conflating them.

网络是该去美国化,但这和中俄的缺少网络言论自由是两码事。作者狡猾地将两者混为一谈。

Morozov is the author of multiple bestsellers on the internet age. You're just someone who accuses him of anti-Americanism as a knee-jerk response.

莫罗佐夫是互联网时代多本畅销书的作者。你呢只是一个凭直觉指责他有反美情绪的家伙。

You know, you just helped clarify for me why the article was so, well, confusing. Confusing is not the right word. It was more like muddled. The author was comparing apples and oranges.

I suppose the threat the US poses is not to internet freedom per se as much as it a threat to privacy. That is a standard concern one has with any government, regardless of whether the internet is 'de-Americanized', as you put it, or not. More to the point, the greatest threat internet privacy comes from private actors, not government, IMHO.

Internet freedom as I understand it is the right to post what one wants and access whatever one cares to access without interference from government. That is under threat from governments like Russia and China, not the US.

I agree that one's privacy rights should be protected by the government in which one has a voice. In other words, it makes sense to see the web de-Americanized. This is especially true for Europeans. As an American, I am envious of the greater concern for privacy rights than found here in the US.

你的发言让我明白了我为什么会对这篇文章感到如此困惑。困惑一词用的不太准确。这更像是一种混乱。这个作者写的东西有点牛头不对马嘴。

我认为美国对网络自由本身的威胁,并没有它对(个人)隐私的威胁那么大。(政府对民众个人隐私的威胁)这是人们对每一个政府都存有的担忧,不管这个网络是否是“去美国化”。要是说得更准确些,请恕我直言,网络隐私最大的威胁来自私人行为,而并非政府。

网络自由在我看来就是人们有权发表自己的真实想法,有权知道自己想知道的而不会遭到政府干涉。(网络自由)的威胁便来自于中国、俄罗斯这样的政府,而不是美国。

我同意民主政府应该保护公民的个人隐私权。换句话说,互联网去美国化是件有意义的事。对欧洲人来说尤其正确。欧洲人对隐私权利的关注远超美国人,作为一个美国人,这点实在是让我羡慕。

The two issues are in fact intrinsically linked, as the the US is trying to leverage the americanized Internet as an instrument of power.

事实上,两者之间存在一种内在联系,因为美国正试着利用美国化的网络来作为权力的工具。

[Morozov is the author of multiple bestsellers on the internet age. You're just someone who accuses him of anti-Americanism as a knee-jerk response.]

Actually, I take that one back (it was, ironically, too "knee-jerk" itself). Your other comments demonstrate that you are considerably more eloquent and balanced than your first comment would seem to suggest.

[引用评论:莫罗佐夫是互联网时代多本畅销书的作者。你呢只是一个凭直觉指责他有反美情绪的家伙。]

我收回我之前的那条评论(讽刺的是,它的确有点太“凭直觉”了)。比起你的第一条评论,你的其他评论证明了你是一个很有口才,很公正的人。

Never said anything of the kind.

(作者)从没说过那样的话。

I bet that in whatever society the granted 'freedom' for its people is regulated by the political agenda of the country. So every time an individual making use of his/her 'freedom' collide with the sensible issues determined by the country's political interest, this individual will be in trouble with the 'law'. 

So, for me it's a false dilemma to answer which countries do not offer 'free' Internet...

我敢说,不管是哪个社会,人们被赋予的“自由”都是由这个国家的政治议程所掌控的。所以每次当个人利用了个人“自由”做出了与国家政治利益相违背的敏感事件,他就触犯了“法律”。

因此,对我来说很难回答到底是哪个国家没有网络“自由”…

Predictably specious analysis from a guy whose username translates to "Western media bias".

Hey, troll. Let's accept your dodgy premise that the PRC's Internet policy and the US's are both simply grounded in the respective country's political agenda - and we can also accept your even dodgier implication that all talk by the US government and American citizenry in general about freedom is wholly disingenuous. Then, if the PRC's political agenda means so much more interference in the lives of its citizens than the US's political agenda (and so many more deleted posts, banned topics, political prisoners, thuggish propaganda and attacks on dissent in the official media), then clearly the PRC's political agenda is a worse thing than the US's political agenda.

一点也不意外这种看似正确的言论从ID名字叫做“西方媒体偏心”的网友口中说出。

嗨,“投饵”人。就先顺着你这个避重就轻的假设,中国和美国的互联网政策都是根据各自国家的政治议程来制定的,还有你那个更不靠谱的言外之意,说什么美国政府和民众有关自由的言论全部都是虚伪的。如果中国的政治议程比美国的政治议程对公民的生活有更多干涉的话(还有比美国更多的删帖、禁言话题、政治犯、暴力宣传以及官媒对不同政见者的攻击),那么很明显中国的政治议程比美国的要糟糕得多。

[注:Troll: 捣乱 / 瞎说八道的人。特意在论坛里发布挑衅信息,为了引起话题与争论的人。一般都是搞笑或讽刺。维基百科troll:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) ]

[Hey, troll...]

What's with the name calling? Unable to articulate an argument?

[if the PRC's political agenda means so much more interference in the lives of its citizens than the US's political agenda...then clearly the PRC's political agenda is a worse thing than the US's political agenda.]

An extraordinary hypothetical, based on an assumption. Utterly meaningless.

[引用评论:嗨,“投饵”人。]

你这是在叫谁?就不能好好发表你的观点?

[引用评论:如果中国的政治议程比美国的政治议程对公民的生活有更多干涉的话(还有比美国更多的删帖、禁言话题、政治犯、暴力宣传以及官媒对不同政见者的攻击),那么很明显中国的政治议程比美国的要糟糕得多。]

这是个很特别的假设,但它建立在另外一个假设的基础上。毫无意义。

[注:“An extraordinary hypothetical, based on an assumption.”这句话里hypothetical貌似只有形容词词性,extraordinary也没有名词词性,按译者对句子的理解只能是把hypothetical译成了名词]

[if the PRC's political agenda means so much more interference in the lives of its citizens than the US's political agenda (and so many more deleted posts, banned topics, political prisoners, thuggish propaganda and attacks on dissent in the official media), then clearly the PRC's political agenda is a worse thing than the US's political agenda.]

Somewhere a village is missing its idiot..... Go back 30 years and any suggestion that the US, China and Russia's human rights and privacy issues were similar or even comparable would have been met with laughter and derision. Now it's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest. This isn't because Russia and China have become more free and open is it..? These comparisons are now being raised because the US has abandoned any ideals it once had surrounding human rights, privacy, torture, imprisonment without trial, respect for the sovereignty of other countries etc etc etc.... I think most posters here accepts that China and Russia are morally bankrupt but they always have been..... what has changed is that the US has decided to join them.

[引用评论:如果中国的政治议程比美国的政治议程对公民的生活有更多干涉的话(还有比美国更多的删帖、禁言话题、政治犯、暴力宣传以及官媒对不同政见者的攻击),那么很明显中国的政治议程比美国的要糟糕得多。]

有个傻子从村里跑了出来…过去30年里,在比较中美俄三国人权状况和公民隐私问题上,如果有人认为它们之间没有多大差别,都会遭到讥笑与嘲弄。现在这个观点也可以站住脚跟了。之所以会出现这种状况并不是因为中国和俄罗斯更自由更开放了,它们有吗?现在这些被重新拿来进行对比,是因为美国抛弃了它曾经的理念,(这些理念)涉及人权、隐私、酷刑、未经审判而被监禁、尊重他国主权等等…我想这里发言的大多数网友都承认中国和俄罗斯是道德败坏的国家,一直都是…唯一不同的是美国已经决定跟它们一伙了。

[Go back 30 years and any suggestion that the US, China and Russia's human rights and privacy issues were similar or even comparable would have been met with laughter and derision. Now it's a perfectly reasonable thing to suggest. This isn't because Russia and China have become more free and open is it..? These comparisons are now being raised because the US has abandoned any ideals it once had surrounding human rights, privacy, torture, imprisonment without trial, respect for the sovereignty of other countries etc etc etc.... I think most posters here accepts that China and Russia are morally bankrupt but they always have been..... what has changed is that the US has decided to join them.]

What has changed is that many more people now see that the commitment to human rights, freedom democracy, etc., etc. was spin and not reality. The USG has not changed that much, it's just that its mask is slipping. In large measure by the heroic actions of Manning and Snowden.

[引用评论:过去30年里,在比较中美俄三国人权状况和公民隐私问题上,如果有人认为它们之间没有多大差别,都会遭到讥笑与嘲弄。现在这个观点也可以站住脚跟了。之所以会出现这种状况并不是因为中国和俄罗斯更自由更开放了,它们有吗?现在这些被重新拿来进行对比,是因为美国抛弃了它曾经的理念,(这些理念)涉及人权、隐私、酷刑、未经审判而被监禁、尊重他国主权等等…我想这里发言的大多数网友都承认中国和俄罗斯是道德败坏的国家,一直都是…唯一不同的是美国已经决定跟它们一伙了。]

唯一不同的是越来越多的人开始认识到(政府对)人权和自由民主的承诺不过是个谎言。美国政府并没有怎么变,不过是露出了它的真面目。这很大程度上要归功于布拉德利•曼宁和斯诺登的英雄行径。

[This isn't because Russia and China have become more free and open is it..?]

This is another point: Russia and China, or rather their governments, have no wish to be more repressive than they they feel the need to be to keep themselves in power. Were the USG less aggressive in its efforts to stir up trouble in other countries I have no doubt whatever other countries would be less repressive.

So for example were the USG to sop trying to overthrow the Cuban government by foul means or fouler, I have no doubt the Cuban people would enjoy more freedoms than they do.

[引用评论:之所以会出现这种状况并不是因为中国和俄罗斯更自由更开放了,它们有吗?]

这是另外一点:俄罗斯和中国,更准确地说应该是它们的政府,只要能保住它们的统制地位,它们也不愿意表现得过分专制。如果美国政府能少花点心思在给其他国家制造事端上,我想它们也不会如此专制。

如果美国政府停止用卑鄙的伎俩和人物去推翻古巴政府,我敢肯定古巴人民就能享受到比现在更加多的自由。

I get what you're saying.

I imagine a Chinese / Russian denied access to Gmail, etc. They would probably just shrug shoulders and move on. Because heavy censorship is common for years. I imagine that elsewhere, there would be protests. It is in breach of human rights as stated by the UN.

I abhor the idea of surveillance, ie. taking the idea of giving up a bit of freedom for security too far. NSA wrongly breaches our privacy. But it does not deny access to anti-political articles. This is a big difference.

A very worrying article telling me that the stakes are getting higher in the information age. And the means are getting unconscionable.

我懂你的意思。

我想象一下,当中国人或是俄罗斯人无法登陆使用Gmail时,他们也许只是耸耸肩然后就去干别的了。因为两个国家的严格审查制度已经实行很多年百姓们都习惯了。如果是发生在别处,可以就会有抗议了。这种行为侵犯了联合国所声明的人权。

我讨厌监管这种主意,尤其是打着安全的旗号迫使人们放弃一部分自由,这就有点过了。美国国家安全局(NSA)不正当地侵犯了我的隐私权。但它却没有阻止我阅读一篇反政治文章。这就是美国国家安全局(NSA)和中俄最大的不同了。

You realize the Cuban people aren't allowed to have the Internet, right?

你应该知道现在古巴人民还没法上网,对吧?

[ubiktd Jon 4 Jan 2015 8:41 

“I am thinking about something much more important than bombs,” John von Neumann remarked in 1946. “I am thinking about computers.”

约翰•冯•诺依曼1946年曾说过:“我在思考着比炸弹更重要的事情——电脑。”

One man's internet freedom is the State's freedom to spy on said man, or woman, for that matter. All states are using the internet for their own reasons, but it is true to say that the America is probably benefitting from it most, in this respect of misusing it.

从这点上说,人们拥有网络自由,国家也拥有对这些人暗中监控的自由。所有国家如何使用互联网都有他们自己的理由,但是在滥用网络这个问题上,可以说美国是从中获益最多的。

Russia and China can indulge in all the internet censorship they like because..well...America does stuff too! Oh look they even managed to squeeze the world 'imperialism' in. Well done there.

俄罗斯和中国可以随心所欲地实行它们的网络审查制度因为…美国也这么干了!看啊,它们现在已经成功挤进世界“帝国主义”的行列了。干得漂亮。

I think you misread the article, this is closer to what it said:

[When the US is attempting to control yours and my data wherever it stands in the world. throw them some criticism alongside Russia and China.]

我想你是误解了这篇文章的意思,下面这种说法更符合本文意思:

[引用:美国现在正试着掌握我们的数据不论何地。我们应该跟中俄站在一起批评美国人。]

America has done well to veil the nazism in democracy.

美国做得好的地方是把纳粹主义藏在了民主的面纱下。

It's better to the actions of the USA , warts and all. , than hide it.

相比之下,美国的行为更容易接受些,至少它从不遮遮掩掩。

Just so you know, comparing something you don't like to Nazism doesn't automatically mean you're right.

你要知道,把一样你不喜欢的东西比作纳粹并不意味着你就一定是对的。

Any attempt to wrestle even a modicum of (information) control from the empire is blasphemy to be smashed. Yet despite its fierce efforts the superpower control is slipping on all fronts - political, economic and soon to be internet 

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175935/tomgram%3A_pepe_escobar%2C_eurasian_integration_vs._the_empire_of_chaos/ 

任何试图与帝国的信息监控作斗争的尝试都是不敬的,是会被毁灭的。尽管他们做了很多努力来对抗超级大国的控制力,但在政治、经济各个战线上都逐渐溃败,接下来要轮到网络了。http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175935/tomgram%3A_pepe_escobar%2C_eurasian_integration_vs._the_empire_of_chaos/

[Any attempt to wrestle even a modicum of (information) control from the empire is blasphemy to be smashed. Yet despite its fierce efforts the superpower control is slipping on all fronts - political, economic and soon to be internet http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175935/tomgram%3A_pepe_escobar%2C_eurasian_integration_vs._the_empire_of_chaos/  ]

Thanks for that reference - its a very interesting read.

[引用评论:任何试图与帝国的信息监控作斗争的尝试都是不敬的,是会被毁灭的。尽管他们做了很多努力来对抗超级大国的控制力,但在政治、经济各个战线上都逐渐溃败,接下来要轮到网络了。http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175935/tomgram%3A_pepe_escobar%2C_eurasian_integration_vs._the_empire_of_chaos/ ]

谢谢你的引用,那是一篇很有趣的阅读材料。

?

The US desperately wants to continue with hegemony over the world.

To do this it is necessary to have total access to the internet in order to glean every possible invention, proprietary information and strategic thoughts of every one else.

The US has demonstrated that they do indeed have the internet completely under their control and use it to collect every bit and byte for their perusal.

Neither Russia or China et al have the same capability at this point in time.

One would have to define "internet freedom" before any reasonable conclusion could be made?

美国拼命地想要延续它的世界霸主地位。

为了达到这个目的他们只有全面联网,从而搜集他人所有的关于发明、专利信息、战略思想等方面的情报。

美国已经承认它的确有能力掌控整个互联网,并利用它来搜集所有资料以供他们查阅。

与此同时中俄还有其他国家都不具备这种能力。

在一切都还没有定论之前,就这么急着去给“网络自由”下一个定义么?

Computers hacking by foreign countries can only give what is stored on those computers connected to the Internet. Many proofs and papers get no where Internet ready computers.

外国电脑黑客只能拿到联网电脑上的资料。许多重要的纸质文件在联网电脑上是找不到的。

After where put 'Near'.

在上句的“where”后面加个“near”。

That isn't true in academia, generally. And we have plenty of evidence of 'closed' systems being effectively hacked.

It is best to assume that anything typed in to any electronic device physically capable of connection to the Internet (via any route) is potentially compromised. Recall also that the biggest leak of diplomatic cables and other information was physically walked out on recordable CDs -- security is difficult, and excessive secrecy only compounds the headache.

从理论上来说,你的说法并不正确。已经有大量证据显示“不联网”的系统也有可能被黑客入侵。

应该这样设想,任何被输入可联网电子设备(通过任何方法)的信息都有可能被盗。外交电报或者其他信息的外泄,问题有可能出在可录写光碟上。想保证安全是很困难的,过度的保密只会让人更头疼。

That isn't true in academia, generally. And we have plenty of evidence of 'closed' systems being effectively hacked.

Anything the governments of the world want to be kept completely secret would be typed on a typewriter and locked in a safe. Since the Snowden revelations there have been a number of articles in the media suggesting this is now common once again. You can't hack what isn't digitised.

(引用楼上评论)“从理论上来说,你的说法并不正确。已经有大量证据显示“不联网”的系统也有可能被黑客入侵。”

过去所有政府的机密文件都会经过打字机然后被锁在一个保险柜里。自从斯诺登泄密事件发生之后,很多媒体文章都猜测这种(保密的)做法估计又要被重新启用了。骇客不能盗取电子数据之外的信息。

Wow, didn't know that... Anyway it reminds me of Battlestar Galactica! :P

啊,这我就不清楚了…不管怎样,它让我又想起了《太空堡垒卡拉狄加》!(表情:吐舌头)

[The US has demonstrated that they do indeed have the internet completely under their control ...]

Sorry to correct you here. Surveillance does not amount to any control, let alone complete control. As in the Snowden case, NSA duplicates data traffic to eavesdrop, not diverting/modifying data.  This is different to actual control exercised by China & Russia, eg. heavy censorship.

I still disagree with surveillance and I hope that good lawyers can successfully oppose draconian surveillance and/or censorship in these countries.

[引用评论:美国已经承认它的确有能力掌控整个互联网…]

抱歉,我要纠正你一下。监管不等同于掌控,更不要说完全掌控了。在斯诺登这件事中,美国国家安全局(NSA)只是复制了数据用于窃听,并没有转移或是修改这些数据。这与中俄的网络监控(例如严格的审查制度)不是一回事。

我也不同意监管,我也希望这些国家(中俄)的律师可以(通过法律途径迫使政府)放弃严格的(网络)监管和审查制度。

It's time the appropriate EU institutions stepped up to the plate on behalf of it's citizens and legislated for compulsory encryption for everything everywhere, end to end. The internet of everything is on the way and encryption HAS to be factored in to it.

现在该是欧盟为了它的公民有所行动的时候了,要立法规定事事处处、从头到尾都要强制进行数据加密。网络上的一切都应该这样,都该进行数据加密。

It's time for the EU to legislate against European companies using .com (i.e. US resident) domains. Or if not legislate against them, then at least legislate in favour of EU resident domains.

是时候该让欧盟立法来阻止欧洲公司使用.com(根服务器在美国)的域名了。就算不立法来阻止他们(使用.com的域名),也该立法鼓励使用根服务器在欧洲的域名了。

That's a tad silly.

那样听起来有点愚蠢。

Not really. Care to debate? You first.

不见得。介意讨论一下么?你先说吧。

That's like legislating everyone to put on bullet-proof vests because there is a gun out there.

The problem here is not that everyone should be protected (be safe than sorry). The problem is surveilling without warrant. It is made famous by the Snowden case. The US citizens had the right to feel that their rights are being eroded. What next? Censorship of websites that oppose the govt??

这种做法就好像因为有人持枪,所以要立法规定每个人都要穿上防弹衣。

问题并不在于每个人都需要保护(免吃后悔药)。问题在于没有得到许可的情况下进行的监控。斯诺登事件后这个问题开始被人们所关注。美国人感到自己的权利受到了侵害也是正常的。接下来会发生什么?会对反政府网站进行审查?

It doesn't really mean anything. Encryption isn't some kind of computer magic that stops bad guys reading stuff. You can't encrypt a tweet, because if you did no-one would be able to read it, rather defeating the point.

Encryption generally only works between two parties who know who each other are, and trust each other. The whole point of much of the Internet is to enable communication between relatively unknown parties - e.g. all of social media, comments on a site like CiF, and so on. "Encrypt everything to eliminating snooping" is like saying "Just lock everything to eliminate theft"

这么做一点意义也没有。数据加密又不是什么电脑魔术可以阻止坏人读取(他人的)数据。你又不能把一条推文加密,如果你真这么做了,没人能看到你的推文,就已经能反驳你的观点了。

通常只有在两方互相了解和互相信任的基础上数据加密才有作用。多数网络的全部意义在于它可以与相对陌生的一方自由沟通。例如所有的社交媒体可以在一个叫CiF或其他类似的网站上发表评论。如果为了消除窥探而选择对所有数据进行加密,就好比是为了消灭小偷而把所有人都关起来。

Wow, I wish I read here more articles like this with sober assessment of modern political events.

哇,我希望能多读到一些像这样的文章,对现代政治事件有一个的客观评价。

So what it boils down to, is there is no difference between democracies, Communist and Fascist states.

所以这篇文章最后的结论是,民主、共产主义和法西斯国家之间并没有什么不同。

No, there are significant differences. Communism and Fascism are on different ends of the spectrum.

Fascism has more in common with bourgeois democracy. They are both capitalist.

不,还是有着明显区别的。共产主义和法西斯主义是两个极端。法西斯主义与资产阶级民主有更多的共同之处。它们都是资本主义。

Well seeing that I can call the government of this country a failure, and a Chinese person can't, I would say that there are considerable difference, differences which I am quite appreciative of!

PS: Tories out!

因为在这个国家我可以说政府是个失败者,而中国人却不能。所以按我说还是有很大差别的,我太感激这种差别了!PS:保守党滚开!

No single system of government is right for every country. Let the citizens decide.

没有任何一种政体可以适用于每一个国家。还是让(那个国家的)人民来决定吧。

[Well seeing that I can call the government of this country a failure, and a Chinese person can't...]

Yes they can. You should ask a Chinese.

[引用评论:因为在这个国家我可以说政府是个失败者,而中国人却不能。]

中国人也可以的,你应该去找个中国人来问问。

Harvard university did a study of that a few years ago. The Chinese government allow criticism of them, instead focusing on major events e.g. organised protests.

There is a more active and vocal online community in China than the US - there have been several cases in the past couple of years where they target a corrupt official to the point of punishment/being sacked. How many cases in the US can say that?

哈佛大学数年前曾做过一个调查。中国政府确实允许民众对它进行批评,而不是将注意力投到一些大型事件(例如有组织的抗议活动)上。

在中国网络上有这样一个群体,他们比美国的类似群体更活跃也更喜欢(对公共事务)发声。过去几年来他们针对(腐败所做的努力)已经使一些贪官受到处分或是被解除职务。在美国,这样的例子有多少呢?

The problem in the US is that officials are not really accountable to the electors any more -- certainly not at the Federal level.

There is an initiative to get a Constitutional amendment through (via the State legislatures) intended to remove the corrupting influence of money in politics. That seems like the best bet to get the US back under control of the citizens, barring some major upheaval.

美国现在的问题是官员不再对选民负责,当然我所指的官员不包括联邦政府一级的。

现在有一个通过宪法修正案的提案(通过国家立法机关),目的是消除金钱在政治中的腐败影响。这似乎是除了造成社会剧变之外,能让美国重新回到公民控制状态的最好解决办法。

Can you provide examples of corrupt officials in the US?

你能举出一些美国腐败官员的例子么?

So what it boils down to, is there is no difference between democracies, Communist and Fascist states.]

CardiacUnrest said:

[No, there are significant differences. Communism and Fascism are on different ends of the spectrum.

Fascism has more in common with bourgeois democracy. They are both capitalist.]

Some communist-run states end up with repressive regimes that have far too many aspects that look like Fascism, but Communists and Fascists start out with very different ideas of what they are trying to achieve. Communists start out, trying to achieve an egalitarian society where everyone who can works for the common good and the wealth is shared more or less equally. Fascists, on the other hand, start out with the idea that there are naturally leaders and underlings and it is the leader's job to lead his underlings to glory and anyone who gets in the way of that should be eliminated (used or wasted) as quickly as possible.

[引用评论:Bobmex 04 January 2015 1:08am

所以这篇文章最后的结论是,民主、共产主义和法西斯国家之间并没有什么不同。]

(网友)CardiacUnrest的评论:

[引用评论:不,还是有着明显区别的。共产主义和法西斯主义是两个极端。法西斯主义与资产阶级民主有更多的共同之处。它们都是资本主义。]

一些社会主义国家因专制统治而被终结,在很多方面它们与法西斯主义很相像。但是社会主义和法西斯主义在奋斗目标的出发点上是截然不同的。社会主义的目标是建立一个平等主义的社会,即每个人会为了共同利益而奋斗,财富也会被平均分配。另一方面,法西斯主义则是抱有天生领袖的想法,他们的职责是带领追随者走向辉煌,任何阻挡了他们去路的人(已经利用过的或是没有利用价值的)应该被尽快地清除。

[So what it boils down to, is there is no difference between democracies, Communist and Fascist states.]

I'd like to think there is still a clear and distinct difference. No matter how bad the US govt is in league with NSA in surveilling and breaching our privacy, the US has something that China & Russia does not... The separation of legislative, judiciary and executive powers. Fought for by the French and adopted by British, the US, Australia, etc. But not by China (one-party rule over everything), and Russia.

As pointed out in the article, Yahoo, XMission (in Utah), etc successfully repelled the NSA through the courts. I don't see this remotely possible in China / Russia.

[引用评论:所以这篇文章最后的结论是,民主、共产主义和法西斯国家之间并没有什么不同。]

我想它们之间还是有着明显差异的。不管美国政府再怎么坏,和美国国家安全局(NSA)合起伙来监视和破坏我们的隐私权,美国和中俄还是有所不同的…比如三权分立。起缘于法国,在英国、美国和澳大利亚等国付诸实践。但是中国(一党专政)和俄罗斯却没有采用三权分立政体。

就像本文中所提到的,Yahoo, XMission(位于美国犹他州)等公司拿起法律武器击退了美国国家安全局(NSA),而在中国和俄罗斯,这几乎是不可能的事情。

[Can you provide examples of corrupt officials in the US?]

Nothing could be more easy from a quick internet search it would seem.

PRESENTING: The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress - Business insider.

List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses - Wikipedia

You might also like to research the "revolving door" practice between private and public office. There are a number of cases where the practice is tantamount to corruption.

[引用评论:你能举出一些美国腐败官员的例子么?]

上网一搜就知道了。

《最腐败的国会议员》——商业内幕新闻网站(新闻链接:http://www.businessinsider.com/congress-corrupt-list-2012-9?op=1 )

《被判贪污罪的美国联邦官员清单》——维基百科(新闻链接:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses )

你还可以去研究一下存在于私人部门和公共部门的政治“旋转门”。你能找到很多例子,这些行为其实就相当于腐败。

[注:百度百科词条:旋转门(政治机制)http://baike.baidu.com/link?url=nYVcqnMolz_KCZmSnMqDaj7id63RpxHGu5W2ZHLUcf7LcVYOXMpRKDLqPCt5XJ5goptsstE1zVn6z8oANwkf7uPCjjRcteY5y6vXsT1tKkO ]

[Can you provide examples of corrupt officials in the US?]

Diane Feinstein had to figuratively throw the CIA under the bus in order to apply a bit of misdirection so people would stop talking about how she used her power to benefit her husband's financial interests. Nancy Pelosi's admission that they had to pass the ACA before they could find out what was in it, shows that Congress didn't write it. If that isn't an example of corruption, I don't know what you need to see

[引用评论:你能举出一些美国腐败官员的例子么?]

黛安•范斯坦,为了误导公众,让人们不再议论她是否利用了手中的权力为丈夫谋利,不得不象征性地把中央情报局(CIA)往火坑里推。[注:南希•佩洛西的例子译者实在读不懂,所以不能翻译了。这里有维基百科对南希•佩洛西的介绍,里面有她的一个算是丑闻的介绍,关于金融内线交易。链接:http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/蘭希•佩洛西 ]如果这些都不算是腐败的例子,那我也不知道你需要的是什么了。

Posh Guardianista wrote: "There is a more active and vocal online community in China than the US - there have been several cases in the past couple of years where they target a corrupt official to the point of punishment/being sacked. How many cases in the US can say that?"

She seemed to be saying that the Chinese are freer to call out corrupt officials online than Americans are. Which is ridiculous. Not whether there were corrupt politicians. So, thanks for your links disproving her assertion.

网友(Posh Guardianista)的评论:[引用评论:在中国网络上有这样一个群体,他们比美国的类似群体更活跃也更喜欢(对公共事务)发声。过去几年来他们针对(腐败所做的努力)已经使一些贪官受到处分或是被解除职务。在美国,这样的例子有多少呢?]

她似乎是想说明中国人在网络上可以比美国人更自由的揪出贪官来。这话说得太荒唐了,我不是指两国之间是否有贪官这个问题。所以,谢谢你给的链接反驳了她的言论。

Well said. I was about to laugh too.

The biggest snakes in China are untouchable. From mass-murdering Mao Zedong (whose pic is still worshiped to this day), to the retired Jiang Zemin who amassed billions of dollars while in office.

Question: how can you trust China, when journalists are not even allowed to interview the politicians?

Hint: google "journalists interviews china politicians", and there is lately none.

说得好。我都要笑出来了。

最大的贪官在中国是动不了的。从搞大屠杀的毛(他的画像至今仍被人们供奉着)到已经退休的江,他在任时搜刮了数十亿美元。

问:当记者甚至不被允许采访政客的时候,该如何信任中国?

提示:搜索“记者采访中国领导人”,结果是无。

OK thanks.

好的,谢了。

OK thanks.

好的,谢了。

Any politician, who is influenced by lobbyists. Lobbyism is a legalized corruption.

所有政客都会被说客影响。(对议员游说、疏通以影响其投票的)院外活动是被合法化的腐败。

请支持独立网站,转载请注明本文链接:http://fm.m4.cn/2015-01/1260100.shtml

文章来源:龙腾网 | 责任编辑:沙枣花

顶踩排行榜 打印本文

关键词:俄罗斯 美国 中国 敌人 网络

用户名: 快速登录 注册
array(16) { [0]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297333) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(60) "朱维群:达赖与暴力恐怖主义的关系能撇清吗" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297333.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451012368803.jpg" ["description"]=> string(259) "12月初,十四世达赖接受意大利媒体采访,称“仍有必要与IS对话,需要倾听、理解,给予所有的尊重”、“对要砍头的人如何倾听呢?只有用心来倾听敌人”。这番言论招致国际舆论的一致谴责。" ["time"]=> int(1451012400) } [1]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297348) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(67) "什么仇什么怨 西方为何对“妖魔化中国”情有独钟" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297348.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451028973285.jpg" ["description"]=> string(349) "由于很多圣诞礼物都写着made in china(中国制造),以至于70%西方小朋友认为圣诞老人是中国人。或许在西方孩子的眼中中国人的形象就是那个戴着红帽子,穿着红色的棉衣,脚穿红色靴子,有着白胡子的慈祥老爷爷,但是在西方大人的眼里中国人却是另一番样子。" ["time"]=> int(1451029018) } [2]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297347) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(57) "请善待我们救援者,哪怕我们只找到一只鸡" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297347.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451027495611.png" ["description"]=> string(260) "微博认证为蓝天救援队的外联部长@蓝天碎叫12月23日晚上发表了长博文《请善待我们救援者,哪怕我们只找到一只鸡》,文中那句“我在十米深的泥坑里凿着墙,你在敲着键盘骂我娘”让网友感叹。" ["time"]=> int(1451027559) } [3]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297341) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(45) "安轩平:打好意识形态斗争主动仗" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297341.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451020867548.jpg" ["description"]=> string(714) "中国纪检监察报点名批评某高校教授冯某以“真相”、“揭秘”为噱头,大肆宣扬历史教科书中的党史很多都不是“真实的历史”,捏造事实,歪曲党史军史,以混淆视听。这充分说明,当前意识形态领域的斗争复杂而尖锐,一些错误思潮暗流涌动,此起彼伏,竞相发声,大肆攻击中国特色社会主义、中国共产党的领导、社会主义核心价值观等,我们必须旗帜鲜明地把意识形态斗争作为事关党和国家生死存亡的大事来看,作为信仰之争、主义之争、制度之争的政治战来打,以共产党人的高度智慧和坚定意志,打好打赢意识形态主动仗。" ["time"]=> int(1451020875) } [4]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297325) ["icon"]=> string(5) "blank" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(66) "环球时报:香港极端反对派亟需搞清自己“是谁”" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297325.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451010268306.jpg" ["description"]=> string(273) "香港极端反对派给全国社会做了很低劣的“民主”示范,“港式民主”意味着政治对抗、社会动荡、人群撕裂以及经济发展被搅乱等等,包括一些稀奇古怪的现象会伴随出笼,这就是它给内地很多人的印象。" ["time"]=> int(1451010301) } [5]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297321) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(66) "李云飞阿訇:伊斯兰文明从制度上败给了西方文明" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297321.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451009743802.png" ["description"]=> string(192) "阿拉伯字母仍是仅次于拉丁字母的世界上使用最广泛的文字系统,伊斯兰文明也是当今人类社会唯一有可能把西方文明取而代之的世界文化体系。" ["time"]=> int(1451009766) } [6]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297292) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(81) "罗思义:中国在毛泽东治下取得了世界史上最伟大的社会成就" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297292.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451003936527.jpg" ["description"]=> string(210) "我们此前已经比较分析了中国1978年改革开放前后的经济增长情况。尽管如此,如果不了解1949年至1978年改革之前所取得巨大的社会成就,我们仍可能会被误导。" ["time"]=> int(1451003943) } [7]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297318) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(33) "香港特首进京也“跑部”" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297318.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451008702623.png" ["description"]=> string(179) "按照惯例,香港和澳门的特首每年在12月底时都会来北京向国家领导人汇报全年工作,也就是所谓的“述职”,再通俗点就是年终总结。" ["time"]=> int(1451008771) } [8]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297303) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(42) "虎牙妹:《万万没想到》有点渣" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297303.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451005863619.png" ["description"]=> string(228) "由于《万万》在网络剧时期累积了不小的人气,电影在点映时取得了相当大的成功,正当人们以为它能取得票房佳绩的时候,《万万》的风评却急转直下,在豆瓣上评分6.1。" ["time"]=> int(1451005740) } [9]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297295) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(72) "马平:作为前工程师,我认为深圳滑坡事故是这么回事" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297295.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451004166233.jpg" ["description"]=> string(183) "一般来说,规划和建设部门会分别对建设区附近的地质条件进行勘探,分析地质灾害的可能性。对于可能出现滑坡的地段,应该进行治理。" ["time"]=> int(1451004167) } [10]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297290) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(45) "寒竹:中国历史中的社会主义根基" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297290.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1225/1451003740374.jpg" ["description"]=> string(213) "在经济领域进一步深化市场化导向的改革,是当下中国发展的一个重要方向。市场能够最大限度地实现资源的有效配置,从而给经济发展提供强大而持续的动力。" ["time"]=> int(1451003764) } [11]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297248) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(69) "自导自演的和平演变:越南反共总理政治炒作的背后" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297248.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1224/1450949829631.png" ["description"]=> string(303) "越南中央级的党报党刊、军报军刊最近发表大量文章,阐述党的路线和大政方针,同时揭露、批判“国内外各种敌对势力和政治机会主义分子”在十二大前的各种破坏阴谋和伎俩,强调要防范和反对“和平演变”和“颜色革命”。" ["time"]=> int(1450949950) } [12]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297247) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(42) "津巴布韦缘何“相中”人民币?" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297247.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1224/1450948423306.png" ["description"]=> string(140) "中国是津巴布韦的第二大贸易合作伙伴,每年双边贸易额超过10亿元,津巴布韦对人民币的需求日趋强烈。" ["time"]=> int(1450948518) } [13]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297246) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(33) "台湾选举提前结束了吗?" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297246.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1224/1450946885538.jpg" ["description"]=> string(108) "本来选战就是中间选民的争夺战,这一次,国民党要找回自己的基本盘,怎么了?" ["time"]=> int(1450946760) } [14]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297058) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(90) "清华博士:台湾是“杀出来的奴才,打出来的顺民,惯出来的孽种”" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297058.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1223/1450833056693.png" ["description"]=> string(297) "一直以来,中国政府奉行对台让利政策,对台湾的开放程度远远超过台湾对大陆的开放程度,就已在太阳花运动中被否定的“贸服协定”为例,对大陆的要求几乎全部是高于WTO中的规定,而对台湾却几乎全部是低于WTO的规定。" ["time"]=> int(1450833467) } [15]=> array(11) { ["contentid"]=> int(1297067) ["icon"]=> string(0) "" ["iconsrc"]=> string(0) "" ["title"]=> string(60) "金庸:揭中国人不擅长打仗为何却能赢的真相" ["color"]=> string(0) "" ["url"]=> string(46) "http://www.m4.cn/opinion/2015-12/1297067.shtml" ["subtitle"]=> string(0) "" ["suburl"]=> string(0) "" ["thumb"]=> string(47) "http://upload.m4.cn/2015/1223/1450834511242.jpg" ["description"]=> string(243) "现在许多西方学者都认为,地球就这样大了,无止境地追求、扩充,是不可能的,也是不可取的。今後只能接受中国的哲学,要平衡、要和谐,民族与民族之间要相互协作,避免战争。" ["time"]=> int(1450834575) } }

朱维群:达赖与暴力恐怖主义的关系能撇清吗

1尴尬!英国首相确诊新冠,女主持人宣布时忍
2飞行员听说机上有新冠肺炎感染者 匆忙从驾
3菲律宾一医疗救援包机马尼拉机场起飞时爆炸
4佩洛西:特朗普对疫情的拖延和否认已经产生
5蔡英文视察遇民众怒问:你真的没有"以疫谋
6习近平主席在浙江考察调研
7中英文"方舱医院感染控制手册"出版--中国经
84月1日0点起,我国一批新规将正式实施!
9美媒:特朗普疫情"乐观而虚假的宣传"没奏效
10最新研究:新冠大规模暴发前或已在人群中"
11广铁一列客车在湖南撞上塌方体六节车厢脱轨
12港台时政:特朗普宣战,这是美国内战!
13日本附近突现20艘俄舰船 自卫队应接不暇
14特朗普描述疫情下纽约医院糟糕一幕:我在美
15罗斯福号航母38人确诊 数字攀升美军不安
16确诊了!他们是全球抗疫中最无耻的一群人
17美科学家:新冠病毒"较弱版本"已在人群传播
18美国海军陆战队,打算用导弹围堵中国
19疫情前线有多可怕?美国护士拍下一张照片,
20伊剑:美国疫情连连飙升,病毒真相浮出水面
1美国人追查到疑似新冠肺炎零号病例,军运会
2武汉零号病人终于找到了!果然是参加军运会
3查尔斯王子确诊 英国民众被官方通报的这句
4彭佩奥G7批中国散布假消息 媒体指六国反对
5金灿荣谈台湾:现在是祖国统一的好时机吗?
6李毅:世界格局突然巨变……
7麻生太郎吐槽欧洲:2月底你们还说这是黄种
8专家:中方让步无法换美收手 斗争求和是目
9裸裕的麦当娜为什么说冠状病毒是"伟大的"?
10司马南:节骨眼儿上,中国要不要帮美国?
11司马南:世界格局改变加速,担心什么?
12特朗普暗示中国9月就该通报疫情 美顶级传染
13天津海关从美国进境燕麦种子中检出豚草
14说到美国政府疫情防控能力 美国主持人哽咽
15郁慕明语中评:两岸已经回不去了
16意大利人降下欧盟旗帜,挂起中国和俄罗斯国
172019:美曾举行过一场针对中国爆发传染病的
18尴尬!英国首相确诊新冠,女主持人宣布时忍
19"霹雳布袋戏"台操偶师发表不当言论 "闪耀暖
20纪俊臣:美国经济可能崩溃需中国助一臂之力
1美国,必须交出5个在武汉军运会后专机接回
2美国人追查到疑似新冠肺炎零号病例,军运会
3美媒:意大利的医院要扛不住了……
4武汉零号病人终于找到了!果然是参加军运会
5现在,荷兰人抢购的竟然是……大麻
6意大利确诊215例:11座城镇封城超市被扫购
7巴基斯坦18岁少年翻进动物园被狮子吃掉
8钟南山院士一语说破了美国的真相
9李毅:世界格局突然巨变
10中国出手了!刚刚,外交部发最新声明
11约翰·加尔通惊世预言——美帝国将在2020年
12司马南:“双渗透”考验中国
13重大发现!我国渤海发现大型油田
14查尔斯王子确诊 英国民众被官方通报的这句
15驻美大使崔天凯接受美媒采访,回应实录
16金灿荣:建议把说中国不行的公知们赶到美国
17司马南:看美国人下棋
18原油价格暴跌对美国经济到底什么影响?
19金灿荣总结新冠教训:今后医改应重视防疫
20金灿荣:新冠疫情,让某些"社会中的病毒"暴