[dujiulun2006]

Chinese govt is telling the world with this attack that: (1) GFW can interfere with incoming traffic. (2) GFW can f* with people all around the world. (3) You can't block a Chinese cyber attack simply by cutting off Chinese users. (4) The Chinese govt is a d*head.

[cryptophreak]

You can use swear words on the Internet.

[panzagl]

You can also not use them.

[virmundi]

And apparently you can partially use them.

[dujiulun2006]

LOL. I even used them wrong. I put in single line-breaks and three asterisks. Guess it's a markdown editor? ;)

[iopq]

He clearly used them.

[superobserver]

That sums it up. Oh, and they're a danger to the internet itself.

[johansch]

So the logical solution is to block all of China and anyone who also doesn't block all of China. And so on...

[aaronem]

Well, no.

The Chinese government is telling the world with this attack that, if you choose to interfere with Chinese sovereignty by means of the Internet, or to enable those who would do that, then there’s a cost.

Note the way the attack is targeted. It’s not just an indiscriminate DDoS of Github, although that’s been the effect — instead, they’re aiming specifically at two repos whose content, being designed and built with the aim of circumventing the technical means by which are implemented a significant goal of China's domestic policy, enables no more or less than a direct attack on the sovereignty of the Chinese government.

To use that content is to say: "You may not run your country in the fashion you choose, because it does not suit me that you should do so."

To host that content is to say: "In this matter, we take the side of those attacking the sovereignty of the Chinese government, by making it easy for them to share and improve the tools with which they do so."

What you're seeing, then, is the quite reasonable response of the Chinese government to these statements. Yes, it's annoying for those of us who use Github, and no doubt it's much worse than merely annoying for those who administer Github. That is the point. Github is being encouraged to consider how much it's worth to them to maintain the stance they've implicitly taken in this matter. I'm looking forward to seeing how they respond.

[dujiulun2006]

Wow. That was just a jokey comment about how angry I was about the Chinese govt.

As one of the billion people who live inside the Intranet "protected" by the GFW, I guess I can say I'm quite aware about how and why this happened. Let's start from the beginning.

For those who host things Chinese govt doesn't like, it usually just block the website altogether (Twitter, FB, and recently Google). But it had tried to block Github, twice. Each time there is a huge response from the Chinese webizens (mainly programmers) calling to unblock it.

Another way to block certain content from a website is to filter by keyword (like Wikipedia). But GH is encrypted so that's a no. The govt even tried to use some fake SSL certificates to MITM it. So some "smart" guys exploited this feature and created the repo greatfire/wiki and things like this.

Then some evil guys from GFW thought of this way, directing the attack at these user accounts, to warn GH to remove these accounts.

What I don't agree with you is the word "reasonable" (and the "no"). First, it's never "reasonable" to DDoS attack a website. Second, if you can't block the content, you have a choice to block the website and take the bitter from every single webizen against you. Finally, I believe it's the website owner's choice to choose who / what they want to use their website. Since GH is a U.S. company (I guess), it doesn't have to listen to a sh*t from the Chinese govt.

[westiseast]

I totally agree with you - the Chinese government has some right to protect their sovereignty, but if github or the American way of life is so offensive, then block the website and tools outright. I live here too, and it's kind of offensive when (speaking generally now) Chinese people want cherry-picked access to Western technology, science, design, creativity etc. but then aggressively reject the culture that produced them.

[aaronem]

Content blocking only does so much, as evidenced by the existence of tools specifically designed for its circumvention, and presumably effective at same.

And of course it's up to the website owner whose content they host. They don't have to take down those repositories. But, unless the DDoS stops, they have to choose between taking down those repos and continuing to stand the gaff.

[eva1984]

No you think every piece of Chinese text written on the Internet belongs is under the control of Chinese government?

Github is a US company that hosts their service in US, Chinese government cannot possibly have sovereignty over that. If you believe there is righteous reason behind it, then you are supporting internet terrorism.

[aaronem]

China has sovereignty over Chinese citizens. If you believe there is righteous reason to circumvent Chinese sovereignty with the collusion of some subjects of the Chinese regime, then you are supporting Internet terrorism.

(The problem with rhetoric is that it can point both ways. Study the definitions of "sovereignty" and "terrorism" in international law, then try again.)

[kinghajj]

China's sovereignty extends only as far as its borders. It has no legitimate say in the goings-on outside. GitHub is located outside of this domain, under the sovereignty of a nation that allows and condones its activity. It's really US sovereignty that's under attack here, if anything.

[aaronem]

This is almost an argument. But when a given nation's citizens attack the sovereignty of another nation, and their own government declines to curtail such behavior, this qualifies as an implicit endorsement. That's why people call it "cyber-warfare"; what we observe here is a border skirmish with less than the usual quantity of gunfire. As I said earlier, I look forward to seeing who wins.

[kinghajj]

But GitHub has in no way attacked China's sovereignty, so as long as GitHub's servers are located within the territory of nations that allow their business to operate. If China has a problem with its citizens accessing content hosted on foreign servers, it certainly has the right to block access. If Chinese citizens then become perturbed due to their reliance on that foreign service, that's a Chinese problem, not GitHub's.

If I were to stand on a sidewalk outside of a church with signs saying "You're God is false, Heaven doesn't exist, you're going to die and disappear forever," and a parishioner decided to punch me in the face to stop me, they would be in the wrong, not me.

[shaftoe]

You think any country has the right to censor news from reaching the people who live in its borders? That that regime has rights that supercede the people? That free speech must succumb to the wishes of government censors?

How totalitarian.

[aaronem]

I think the concept of natural rights, such as that to free speech, is a lovely idea, whose only drawback is that it's not in any sense grounded in reality. I think the Chinese government, being sovereign, has the power to legislate its subjects' rights, just as that of the United States has over that of its citizens. And I think that for the citizens of one nation, to act directly against enforcement of another nation's said legislation, qualifies as an attack against that other nation's sovereignty.

None of these thoughts is tremendously controversial in its own right, save where they conflict with cherished beliefs which I do not happen to share.

[logfromblammo]

Just because might has made right for tens of thousands of years does not mean it should continue to do so tomorrow morning.

Reality is that political power extends from the barrel of a gun. But we also dream bigger and imagine better.

[cryptophreak]

In what way is it “reasonable” to force a policy of censorship on a non-consenting population?