Hacker News Reader

Comment by taligent | Hacker News Reader

I actually briefly saw someone using this when I was in Pyongyang recently.

They have mostly older PCs (with CRTs) and the forums are reminiscent of the internet back in the Netscape 4 days. But from what I saw it is very much an intranet that even had a dating forum. But really it is just a toy for the sons/daughters of the elite. See they very much know about the outside world and so this helps them feel like they aren't missing out on something.

Apparently though Indian workers who have been brought in to work on government construction projects e.g. the pyramid hotel can access the 'proper' internet. But I believe the governments sets up a custom WiFi network.

Also since there were no mobile phone towers around I suspect they may have an underground fibre optic network with lots of microcells around.

View on HN

"Also since there were no mobile phone towers around"

When I was there in April there were people on the streets in Pyongyang using mobile phones (I've got a picture showing it somewhere), so the towers must be there.

Could they have been faking it, to impress foreigners?

This article [1] tells the story of an entire department store that was faked to impress tourists. But that was 20 years ago, so maybe this time it isn't fake.

[1] http://blog.skepticaldoctor.com/2010/01/15/classic-dalrymple...

"Could they have been faking it, to impress foreigners?"

The BBC article linked to discusses the internal mobile phone network. Additionally, my guide would have had to also be faking the voice coming out of the phone and somehow getting information some other way and pretending to have received it on the phone. I'm going to go with actual genuine mobile phone network. :)

Why were you in North Korea? As a tourist?

North Korea is probably the most evil regime in the world. Going there as a tourist supports this regime and as such is profoundly immoral.

I wouldn't go as far as saying visiting North Korea is "profoundly immoral". Would I consider North Korea dangerous to visit though? Yes. The country is still technically at war with South Korea, meaning at any given moment the two nations can dive right back into active combat, which has the potential to become an instant hostage situation for any traveler unlucky enough to be visiting North Korea at that time.

It's really not that dangerous considering the technicality of being at war has existed for decades. Nobody wants a war on the Korean peninsula (to the perennial disappointment of human rights activists):

1. China- prefers the buffer state between itself and US-aligned South Korea 2. South Korea- has seen what happened with Germany's economy after re-unification, fears that times 100 with the state of North Korea's population 3. North Korea- has absolutely no chance of defeating the South without Chinese intervention, which is unlikely to happen.

That combined with the mass destruction and slaughter on both sides of the DMZ which would occur makes all out war unlikely.

What metric are you using to define evil?

If you consider one evil, for example, the number of state sponsored murders of foreign citizens, then NK is pretty far down the list. On the other hand, the supposed "free country" would be dead first.

Then isn't it profoundly immoral to visit the USA?

I can appreciate this sentiment, and to some extent agree, but it strikes me as overly simplistic. The reality is probably more complicated. Just leaving them to their own devices, isolated, is arguably just as bad in terms of propping up the regime. The NK regime is built on control, particularly of information. Any sort of relations with the outside will inherently have something of a subversive nature.

Hope I am not being too nosy, but why were you in NK?

As a tourist? Lots of people go, it's a fascinating country.

I have a profound desire to travel there, but I'm not very good at lying or holding my tongue, so it's probably not a good idea.

Also, if you'll get all precious about bowing to the statue. The number of people who get weird about it astounds me. You'll get told in advance, before going, that you'll go to the big statue and you'll be expected to dress nice and bow. For some people, this is a ridiculously big deal.

Well, as a religious person, I admit I chafe at it, but I'm pretty sure I could fake my way through it. I'd be a lot more worried about accidentally running off my mouth.

"I'm pretty sure I could fake my way through it."

How would you fake bowing to the statue? Would you just sort of start to nod your head and then stop, and then ... well, no, I can't think of any way to fake bowing. You know you're not required to actually worship it, right? Just the bow. It's not like you're relinquishing your citizenship or making a formal statement in support of the government.

As for running off your mouth, seriously? You can't keep your mouth shut for a week? There were dozens of people on my tour group, split amongst three roving packs, and nobody had any trouble at all (including the religious amongst us, who managed to bow to the statue without experiencing a crisis of faith). Americans, Brits, Chinese, Chileans, Belgians, Singaporeans, Swiss, Germans, Australians, New Zealanders, people from all over the world, and nobody had any trouble shutting up.

There's no need to be nasty.

What I mean is simply that though I object to the idea of bowing to a statue I could probably do it. Not that I could somehow fool them into thinking I had when I hadn't. I'm not that naive.

As for running off the mouth, I live with me all day. I have a pretty good idea what I can and cannot do. Your sample size of people who have gone to DPRK and had no trouble shutting up is both self-selected and not large--and they probably have better reasons to be there to boot. I would hope that people with my views and my trouble keeping them quiet would be smart enough not to go.

Oh. I apologise. I must have been misled by the phrase "fake my way through it" when you actually meant "I'd do it". :)

If you did go, and did not shut up, the worst that would happen to you is a quick trip back to Beijing. As your Beijing-side guide would explain, the worst that could happen to your guide is a life (i.e. death) sentence in a labour camp, along with her family (including children), and any children born in the camp die there too. If you truly couldn't keep your mouth shut in such a situation, you definitely shouldn't go (and I don't believe it anyway - that'd be psychological-damage levels of lack of self-control, but because you haven't devolved into screaming abuse, you clearly do actually have enough self-control).

This is why we need to keep the Internet as free and open as we can. Progress and innovation happens on the Internet because of that reason. Imagine if the whole Internet was as restricted as the one in North Korea. It makes me very angry that UN is trying to restrict it even a little bit (or maybe a lot) right now. And ironically they say they want to do it to "accelerate" Internet's growth, which sounds very unlikely, and the opposite seems more likely.

I wish people would stop talking about the UN as though it is some third party government. It is a democratic organisation that is merely a reflection of the agendas of the 193 member countries.

So rather than blaming the UN instead blame the specific countries who are pushing for changes that you don't agree with.

I think you're nitpicking somewhat:

1/ You could equally argue that we shouldn't blame the respective countries when it's actually just a small number of political leaders rather than the consensus of the populous itself.

2/ And being a "democratic organisation" means that the UN's policies are agreed by the majority. Which also means that it's not just the reflections of a small number of member countries but actually the organisation's (the UN's) wider belief.

In fact given the UN is democratic and that most national-level decisions are not (even in democratic countries, we vote in our leaders, they choose the policies. So while we arguably have influence over the policies, those policies are not typically democratically chosen; baring a small number of fringe examples where referendums do happen). Thus you could argue that it's more fair to blame a democratic organisation for voting in policies than the independent nations who's population didn't.

</devils advocate>

However being more pragmatic: it makes greater sense to blame everyone under their organisations umbrella rather than blaming each and every nation individually; for such a list would be lengthy and counter productive.

is a organization of countries democratic when most of the countries that are a member are very undemocratic in one way or the other?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com