Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Facebook. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Facebook. Afficher tous les articles

lundi 20 janvier 2020

Facebook's Freudian Slip

Facebook Translation Bravely Calls Chinese Dictator ‘Mr Shithole’
“This issue is not a reflection of the way our products should work,” Facebook says in a statement
By Sean Burch

China's Shithole

Facebook apologized on Saturday after its translation repeatedly called Chinese dictator Xi JinpingMr. Shithole.”
The typo was featured in several Facebook posts that were translated from Burmese to English, including a post on Burma/Myanmar state counselor Aung San Suu Kyi’s Facebook page, Reuters reported. 
Several mentions of Xi, who is the head of China’s Communist government and has been visiting Burma in recent days, referred to him as “Mr. Shithole.”
Facebook does not know what led to the error, but said it has been fixed.
In addition, a headline in the local news journal Irrawaddy was published as “Dinner honors president Shithole.”
“This issue is not a reflection of the way our products should work and we sincerely apologize for the offense this has caused,” Facebook said in a statement.
Facebook has been blocked in China for several years. 
The country’s internet is censored by the “Great Firewall,” as it’s facetiously been dubbed, which has stifled free speech online for years through a network of "moderators", technical restraints and legislative regulations. 
The Chinese government blocks access to news stories that are overly critical of its Communist regime, as well as major sites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
A parallel online universe exists in China, with popular social media platforms like WeChat and Weibo, a Twitter-esque communication app, filling the void of their blocked Western analogs.
You can read more about China’s internet censorship here.

mercredi 18 décembre 2019

Chinese Peril

How China Will Take Over The World.
By Tatiana Koffman

There is a new cold war on the horizon. 
But instead of oil, the space race, or nuclear weapons, this one is being fought through the penetration of currencies, specifically the US Dollar against the Renminbi, also frequently referred to as the Chinese Yuan. 
Since Facebook announced its new stablecoin project Libra, in June of 2019, Mark Zuckerberg has been tried in the court of public opinion. 
Both Congressional and House Financial Services Committee hearings have essentially made a mockery of our government and showed just how technologically outmoded many of our politicians are.
But while Congressional Representative Katie Porter was commenting on Zuckerberg’s haircut and Congressman Warren Davidson was asking about “shitcoins,” China has been enjoying the spectacle from afar and making its own move. 
Namely, The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) is only a few months away from launching the digital version of the Chinese Yuan, making China the first country in the world to have a digital central bank currency. 
This historical move has been 80 years in the making, and is the ultimate checkmate in the game of economic expansion.

Post-War Economics
The single most transformational economic event over the last century was World War II (1939-1945). 
As governments overprinted and overspent money on defense, many European nations were faced with financial bankruptcy and saw their currencies significantly devalued. 
And when the war was finally over, their balance sheets were far too weak to rebuild infrastructure or meaningfully participate in international trade.
In 1944, in an effort to stabilize the global economy, many of the world's leaders came together at a gathering in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to introduce the Gold Standard. 
It was decided that most of the world’s currencies would become tied to the US Dollar at a fixed exchange rate, which in turn would be backed by gold held in vaults. 
A new entity, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was created to police these exchange rates, while all participating countries would ship their gold to the U.S.
The IMF then created the Special Drawing Right (SDR) which, rather than representing a currency per se, was designed to represent a unit of account or exchange. 
For example, at the time of writing, 1 SDR = 1.38 USD. 
Today, the SDR is based on a basket of currencies which includes the US Dollar, the Euro, Japanese Yen, the Pound Sterling, and most recently, the Chinese Yuan.
After the Gold Standard was introduced, the post-war period between 1945 and 1970 was perhaps the greatest period of economic stability and prosperity of the last century. 
Countries were investing heavily in infrastructure and manufacturing, which provided well-paying jobs, giving rise to the middle class popularized by suburban America. 
It was during this time that the U.S. assumed its world dominance in the political sphere, largely due to the lingering weakness of recovering European economies and their lack of infrastructure and manufacturing capacity.
In 1971, Nixon abolished the Gold Standard to continue funding war efforts in Vietnam, and the world has not been the same since. 
The US Dollar remained widely regarded as the global reserve currency. 
But beginning in 1995, many European countries started using the Euro instead, which was meant to unify the European region through trade.
China started working on its own currency ascension plan to stimulate its trade and economic growth between 1994 and 2005, when it pegged the Yuan to the US Dollar. 
China embraced widespread centralized economic reforms, averaging a GDP growth of 10% annually and lifting half of its 1.3 billion people out of poverty. 
China is projected to surpass the United States as the world’s largest economy in the next decade. 
In 2016, the Chinese Yuan was the first emerging market currency to be allowed into the IMF SDR basket and by 2019 became the 8th most traded currency in the world.

The New Cold War
The growing might of China has put Western powers on high alert. 
But, the next cold war will not be fought by exerting dominance in the physical world, but rather in the digital one. 
Data has become more valuable than oil. 
Modern societies are now powered using oceans of data, with Facebook and Google at the forefront, and companies like Palantir in the background. 
These companies have more knowledge and power than governments have ever had, but lack the same level of responsibility to its ‘citizens’. 
They are our new multinational multilaterals.
In the physical world, the U.S. is known for weaponizing its currency, using sanctions (12 countries today and counting) to alter global behavior. 
But in the digital world, it simultaneously wages war on its own tech companies with regulations, effectively and unwittingly disabling the very tools that could help it achieve lasting global dominance. 
One such effort is the proposed Democrat house bill “Keep Big Tech out of Finance Act.” 
This bill directly targets companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google to prevent them from creating their own ‘corpo-currencies’. 
A similar effort to fight U.S. big tech was undertaken in Europe with the GDPR.
While our governments increasingly make attempts to regulate data, they haven’t quite figured out how to regulate money that isn’t tied to borders. 
Governments can forbid the usage of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as Russia and China recently did, but since the transactions are designed to disintermediate central authority, the ban has only made its citizens more drawn to it.
China’s answer was not just to ban bitcoin, but to give its people an alternative -- the DCEP (Digital Currency Electronic Payment)
China becoming the first country to create a central bank backed digital currency shouldn’t come as a surprise. 
After all, this is a country that has a wider penetration of digital payments than any other region in the world.
WeChat, a popular Chinese chat and peer-to-peer payment app, has surpassed 1 billion users and accounts for 34% of total mobile traffic in China. 
The app appears to be popular among non-Chinese users as well, particularly in Asia and Africa. Consumers can pay for their every day expenses and make peer-to-peer payments with WeChat. 
As one of the 5 entities committed to using the DCEP, it is already accepted by most merchants, with paper bills rarely used. 
Even the homeless proudly display their QR codes in the streets.



China has already penetrated the global market by manufacturing the majority of the world’s consumer products. 
What happens when it creates the most efficient (and legal) payment system in the world and forces us to use it when buying its goods?
And just like that, the U.S. faces a real threat of no longer being the global reserve currency.
Digital Payments in Emerging MarketsEnter Facebook, a company with 2.4 billion users and a reputation for misusing user data. 
The giant also owns a popular messaging app, WhatsApp, with 1.5 billion users. 
The company has proposed its own solution to unite the world -- a digital stablecoin which, upon closer inspection, seems to be modelled after the SDR. 
Libra’s basket is based on 50% USD, and the rest in Euro, Japanese Yen, Pound Sterling, and the Singapore Dollar, as well as other stable non-currency assets. 
Facebook has made a point of excluding the Chinese Yuan, drawing a noticeable line in the sand. 
Zuckerberg has acknowledged that Facebook may not have been the best candidate to bring forth a new international currency given its recent issues with privacy and the Cambridge Analytica scandal. 
But the necessity of such a currency still remains if we hope to slow down the Chinese global footprint.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, the DCEP will be a much greater threat to the ‘western hegemony’ than a Libra coin. 
A western-led digital currency like Libra would have kept the majority of the planet that lives outside of China’s firewall aligned. 
But Zuckerberg’s team made two crucial mistakes. 
First, it did not fully align with the U.S. government before launch, the way WeChat is aligned with the Communist Party of China, and second, perhaps more crucially, it did not take full advantage of Libra’s impact story in emerging markets. 
One had to delve into the Libra white paper to discover the problem Libra was actually trying to solve --  “1.7 billion adults globally remain outside of the financial system with no access to a traditional bank, even though one billion have a mobile phone and nearly half a billion have internet access.” 
This is a valuable statistic, but it is missing a much more important point. 
Many people who do have access to a traditional bank account, don’t want to use it. 
Workers in the developing world routinely line up at bank terminals to cash their paycheck the day it arrives, either because they do not trust their institutions or they find that their banks have predatory fees. 
Many rural communities are still cash-based, with ATMs located hours away. 
Libra would have allowed for liquidity in these communities, in a stable method of exchange, increasing the overall velocity of capital. 
Libra could have solved these issues and more. 
For example, many U.S. immigrants run businesses back in their home countries using WhatsApp. Libra would have allowed workers, suppliers, and managers to receive payments straight to their mobile phone and then spend it within their communities using the same app.
Libra could have made global financing accessible for small businesses and farmers in the developing world. 
One area of impact is Nigeria, which has the highest concentration of arable land in Africa and remains underdeveloped because of struggles with financing. 
For example, a young woman needs a small loan to launch her chicken farming business to support her family. 
There are several government programs in place, but they cannot effectively and securely deploy the capital to reach her. 
She has family in the U.S. and the U.K., but they cannot efficiently send her capital. 
Non-profit grants exist but they also cannot effectively reach her. 
And so, her capital options are limited, and are likely to result in letting go of her dream towards self-reliance.
Ignoring impact stories such as these was a crucial oversight by Facebook. 
And if we are unable to rally behind Libra, capital and liquidity issues in emerging markets will be solved through WeChat, extending the economic influence of the Chinese Yuan. 
Emerging markets will likely become the battleground for the next cold war. 
And as such, the U.S. government will need to ask itself what it fears more, a home-grown technology giant or a world led by China.

mardi 19 novembre 2019

Chinese Fifth Column

Zuckerberg’s Anti-Tyranny Rhetoric Roils Chinese Employees
Tensions between Facebook’s large community of Chinese employees and the company’s management have been on the rise since Zuckerberg became more critical of Beijing. 
By Wayne Ma



Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s Georgetown address about free speech last month drew hostility and skeptical commentary from his Chinese employees. 
Zuckerberg’s criticism of Chinese video app TikTok and China’s censorship of the internet renewed long-standing complaints that Facebook’s management is biased against communist China, according to one Chinese employee who saw messages in Facebook’s internal discussion groups.
Tensions between Facebook management and its large fifth column of Chinese employees have been on the upswing over the past year or so, since Zuckerberg abandoned efforts to get Facebook allowed back into China and instead became more critical of Beijing. 
Many of the company’s newer Chinese employees were hired from mainland China and are unapologetically supportive of the Chinese government.

Facebook is grappling with its large fifth column of Chinese employees, some of whom are becoming more vocal and critical in internal company forums over what they claim is a bias against communist China.

But in the past couple of months complaints of anti-China bias have overlapped with unhappiness about working conditions at Facebook, crystallized by the suicide of a Chinese employee at Facebook headquarters. 

Infiltration by Chinese Spies
The increasingly vocal criticism by Chinese employees is the latest example of how workers at big tech companies such as Google and Amazon have turned pro-China activists, protesting their employers’ business dealings with the U.S. government and complaining about other issues. 
But in this case, Zuckerberg has to walk a fine line, trying to keep an aggressive group of Chinese employees happy while not alienating Facebook’s many anti-China critics in Washington, D.C. 
If he goes too far to appease the Chinese employees, he could hand his critics in Washington more ammunition.
“We’re seeing Chinese employees emerge as a dangerous force from tech companies,” said Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Paulson Institute whose research focuses on the relationship between Silicon Valley and China. 
Further complicating the challenges facing Zuckerberg are comments by longtime Facebook board member Peter Thiel, who accused Google of working with China’s military and that its leadership has been infiltrated by Chinese spies
Thiel said Google was behaving in a “seemingly treasonous” manner. 

A Large Chinese Fifth Column
The ranks of Chinese workers at Facebook—the vast majority of whom are software engineers and data and research scientists—have been increasing in recent years, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees.
The total number couldn’t be learned, although it likely numbers in the thousands (Facebook employed nearly 36,000 people as of Dec. 31). 
Facebook has more Chinese as a share of its U.S. workforce than Apple, Google or Microsoft, according to an analysis of federal filings. 
Some 42% of its U.S. employees were Chinese in 2018, up from about a third in 2014, the filings show. At Google, the percentage in 2018 was 37% and at Apple it was 23%. 
Facebook’s share of green card sponsorships for Chinese employees also has been growing annually since 2013, rising from 25% to 44% of sponsorships in the nine months ending in June.
The internal group Chinese@FB, which Facebook hosts for its Chinese employees, counts more than 6,000 members and is the largest of its kind at the company, current and former employees say.
One former Chinese employee, who worked at Facebook between 2015 and 2019, said there were so many Chinese employees that he sometimes could get away with speaking only Chinese at work. 
Other former Chinese employees recounted being asked by their managers to be mindful of non-Chinese speakers after holding work conversations in Chinese.Chinese workers said they were drawn to Facebook’s results-focused culture and by what they said was its willingness to quickly sponsor employees for permanent residency in the U.S. 
Many Chinese employees hired a decade or so ago rose through the ranks to become directors and vice presidents, which has led to even more hiring of Chinese workers, according to current and former employees. But as the number of Chinese hires has increased, Facebook has had to rely more on mainland China as a source of new talent. 
A decade ago, many of Facebook’s Chinese hires were employees with graduate degrees from American universities who had spent years getting used to the country’s culture.  
In contrast, many of these newer hires haven’t spent as much time in the U.S. and still get their news from China’s state-controlled media and use Chinese social media to keep in touch with friends and family back home, several current and former Chinese employees said. 
They don’t share the U.S. view of the internet as a haven for free speech and open debate.
These employees added that China’s rise as an economic, technological and political power in recent years has made Chinese nationals more assertive about their country’s place in the world.

National Security Risk
Facebook has taken a number of steps in the past year that have been interpreted by its Chinese employees as hostile to the Chinese government. 
Last year Facebook invited Taiwan’s president to a Facebook-sponsored event in Taipei promoting the territory’s economy and e-commerce industry. 
Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen posed for photos with Facebook Vice President for Asia-Pacific Dan Neary and gave a speech highlighting Taiwan’s strong ties with Facebook. 
Chinese employees said in internal groups that the meeting legitimized Taiwan’s claim to self-rule and jeopardized Facebook’s chances of entering China. 
Simon Milner, Facebook vice president of public policy for Asia-Pacific, was forced to defend the event in the messaging groups, according to employees who saw the messages.
Zuckerberg’s public comments have also turned more critical of communist China. 
In March, for instance, Zuckerberg said Facebook would never host data in countries with a track record of violating human rights and last month he said it was never able to reach an agreement with Chinese authorities over how to operate its services free from censorship.
Also this year, Facebook’s Milner visited Hong Kong where he met with a number of local lawmakers and government officials, according to two people familiar with the meetings, which were announced in Facebook’s internal groups. 
The meeting sparked online complaints after Milner met with Alvin Yeung, a Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator, saying the meeting could be viewed as legitimizing pro-democracy demonstrators’ claims to self-autonomy, the people said.
The pro-China activism within the Chinese employee community, and the criticisms of the company they sometimes spark, has alarmed some senior Facebook executives, said a person who is familiar with management’s thinking. 
Some executives, including David Wei, a Facebook vice president of engineering many Chinese Facebook employees said acts as an informal liaison between senior management and Chinese employees, are closely monitoring the internal message groups and have moved to clamp down on discussions when they get heated, the person said. 
For instance, in September, Wei weighed in, urging calm.
“I would encourage everyone in the discussion to try your best to understand each other’s point of view,” he wrote in a post on Chinese@FB. 
“When a discussion gets heated, consider having a tea time in person. Our respectful communication policy ask is that we don’t attempt to convert people’s political views.”
Facebook didn’t respond to a request for comment about these specific incidents with Chinese employees. 

mercredi 11 septembre 2019

Information War

It’s time for the U.S. to start pushing back against Chinese disinformation operations
By Laura Rosenberger and Zack Cooper

He Jiangbing, a finance scholar, shows his Twitter profile in Beijing on Nov. 30, 2018. 

In recent weeks, the world has watched as millions of Hong Kongers have taken to the streets to defend their democratic rights. 
Police have jailed protest leaders, and China has moved troops to the border. 
The struggle has also spread to online platforms, which Beijing is using to shape perceptions of the protests in order to undermine support for them.
Although Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam has addressed one of the key demands from protesters, the protests continue. 
Even if protests dissipate, we should anticipate that Beijing will use the next few months to better understand how demonstrators used online platforms to organize, constrict further online activism and manipulate perceptions of the protesters.
The Chinese security apparatus is deeply experienced in restricting speech online, starting inside its own borders and with its own platforms. 
Western tech companies have now confirmed that the Chinese government is also engaged in an effort to manipulate the information space outside its Great Firewall, from Hong Kong to Melbourne to Vancouver. 
In the process it is also making use of U.S. social media platforms. 
This should serve as a wake-up call for Americans that weaponization of social media is not just a Russian tactic and that our social media platforms remain vulnerable to manipulation by foreign actors seeking to interfere in democratic debate.
The first public evidence of this campaign was confirmed several weeks ago when Twitter, Facebook and Google’s YouTube disabled more than one thousand accounts linked to Chinese state-backed disinformation operations. 
According to the companies, these accounts are operating in a “coordinated manner” and “deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong.” 
Beijing’s target certainly wasn’t citizens in mainland China, where all three platforms are blocked.
China has also been using its state media — as well as advertisements on social media platforms — to portray the protesters as violent to external audiences. 
In the face of this activity, Twitter took the commendable action of halting advertisements from state-controlled media outlets.
Beijing and other authoritarian regimes are increasingly employing these techniques. 
Facebook and Twitter have removed numerous fake accounts linked to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Myanmar for similar manipulative behavior.
Nor is this just about democratic rights in Hong Kong. 
Australia and most of our European allies have struggled to prevent external interference in their democratic processes, and Taiwan is rightly concerned that the manipulation and interference tactics Beijing is exerting in Hong Kong will be used to interfere in its elections next year. 
And we know that social media has been used to attack American democracy.
All Americans can agree on the need to take action to protect our system of government. 
A competition of ideas is healthy, but foreign interference in those debates is not. 
The 2020 elections are likely to be even more contentious than those in 2016, so we need to ensure the health of our political processes.
Despite these shared concerns, our elected leaders have taken few steps to safeguard our democracy, including from foreign manipulation of social media. 
To date, Congress has shown both a thin understanding of technology and a greater interest in scoring partisan points than in addressing real challenges. 
Numerous pieces of bipartisan legislation have gone nowhere, while foreign adversaries have continued their assault on our democratic debate. 
As Congress returns this month, there are several immediate steps it should take.
First, lawmakers should enact measures that facilitate greater cooperation and transparency by social media platforms. 
Congress should pass legislation establishing a mechanism that streamlines and institutionalizes information sharing between and among the social media platforms, government and outside researchers in a manner that protects privacy and speech. 
Legislation such as the bipartisan Honest Ads Act would improve disclosure requirements for online political advertisements and provide Americans with important context to evaluate information about who funds political ads online.
Second, Congress should provide the government with mechanisms to facilitate a coordinated and integrated approach to this issue — one that enables it to see and respond to the full threat picture. This should include creating a counter-foreign interference coordinator at the National Security Council, which would coordinate policy responses across the U.S. government and engage the private sector, and a National Hybrid Threat Center, which would ensure that threat reporting does not fall into gaps and seams as it has in the past. 
Congress should explore whether the intelligence community should receive new powers to detect and assess foreign information operations.
Third, Congress should send a clear message to foreign governments, entities and individuals that the United States will impose significant costs for interference. 
And it should support efforts to redouble coordination with our allies on the shared challenges facing our democracies.
China is using U.S. social media platforms to manipulate how people around the world, including Americans, perceive issues of importance to the party-state. 
Right now the focus is on Hong Kong, but it won’t stay there. 
Our elected leaders can get ahead of the curve and close the vulnerabilities China’s information operations will exploit. 
To preserve the vitality of our free and open democratic process, they should — and now.

mardi 20 août 2019

Thuggish Nation

Twitter and Facebook shut Chinese accounts targeting Hong Kong protests
By TAMI ABDOLLAH








Freedom fighters: People gather in Lafayette Square in front of the White House in Washington, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2019, in solidarity with the "Stand With Hong Kong, Power to the People Rally" in Hong Kong. 

WASHINGTON — Twitter said it has suspended more than 200,000 accounts that were part of a Chinese influence campaign targeting the protest movement in Hong Kong.
The company also said Monday it will ban ads from state-backed media companies, expanding a prohibition it first applied in 2017 to two Russian entities.
Both measures are part of what a senior company official portrayed in an interview as a broader effort to curb malicious political activity on a popular platform that has been criticized for enabling election interference around the world and for accepting money for ads that amount to propaganda by state-run media organizations.
The accounts were suspended for violating the social networking platform’s terms of service and “because we think this is not how people can come to Twitter to get informed,” the official said in an interview with The Associated Press.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security concerns, said the Chinese activity was reported to the FBI, which investigated Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election through social media.
After being notified by Twitter and conducting its own investigation, Facebook said Monday that it has also removed seven pages, three groups and five accounts, including some portraying protesters as cockroaches and terrorists.
The Chinese government said Tuesday it wasn’t aware of the allegations.
Facebook, which is more widely used in Hong Kong, does not release data on such state-backed influence operations.
Neither does it ban ads from state-owned media companies.
“We continue to look at our policies as they relate to state-owned media,” a Facebook spokesperson said in a statement to the AP.
“We’re also taking a closer look at ads that have been raised to us to determine if they violate our policies.”
Twitter traced the Hong Kong campaign to two fake Chinese and English Twitter accounts that pretended to be news organizations based in Hong Kong, where pro-democracy demonstrators have taken to the streets since early June calling for full democracy and an inquiry into what they say is police violence against protesters.
The Chinese language account, @HKpoliticalnew, and the English account, @ctcc507, pushed tweets depicting protesters as violent criminals in a campaign aimed at influencing public opinion around the world. 
One of those accounts was tied to a suspended Facebook account that went by the same moniker: HKpoliticalnew.
An additional 936 core accounts originated from within China attempted to sow political discord in Hong Kong by undermining the protest movement’s legitimacy and political positions.
About 200,000 more automated Twitter accounts amplified the messages, engaging with the core accounts in the network.
Few tweeted more than once, the official said, mostly because Twitter quickly caught many of them.
The Twitter official said the investigation remains ongoing and there could be further disclosures.
Though Twitter, Facebook and most other foreign social media platforms are banned in China, they’re available in semiautonomous Hong Kong.
At a daily briefing Tuesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said he was “not aware” of the allegations of fake accounts, but added that Chinese had the right to “express their opinions about” the situation in Hong Kong.
The free speech organization PEN America welcomed the tech companies’ actions and urged them to do more.
“China’s government has denied its citizens access to global outlets for communication. That they now turn around and stealthily unleash a campaign of disinformation on the very same platforms represents a new height of hypocrisy,” chief executive Suzanne Nossel said in a statement.
The Twitter campaign reflects that the Chinese government has studied the role of social media in mass movements and fears the Hong Kong protests could spark wider unrest, said James Lewis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“This is standard Chinese practice domestically, and we know that after 2016 they studied what the Russians did in the U.S. carefully,” Lewis said.
“So it sounds like this is the first time they’re deploying their new toy.”
Twitter has sought to more aggressively monitor its network for malicious political activity since the 2016 presidential election and to be more transparent about its investigations, publicly releasing data about state-backed influence operations since October so others can evaluate it, the official said.
“We’re not only telling the public this happened, we’re also putting the data out there so people can study it for themselves,” the official said.
As for state-backed media organizations, they are still allowed to use Twitter, but are no longer allowed to pay for ads, which show up regardless of whether you have elected to follow the group’s tweet.
Twitter declined to provide a list of what it considers state-backed media organizations, but a representative said it may consider doing so in the future.
In 2017, Twitter specifically announced it would ban Russia-based RT and Sputnik from advertising on its platform.

mercredi 15 mai 2019

Wikipedia Is Now Banned in China in All Languages

BY HILLARY LEUNG

An error message for the blocked Wikipedia website page is seen on a computer screen on March 23, 2018.

China has expanded its ban on Wikipedia to block the community-edited online encyclopedia in all available languages, the BBC reports.
An earlier enforced ban barred Internet users from viewing the Chinese version, as well as the pages for sensitive search terms such as Dalai Lama and the Tiananmen massacre.
According to Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI), an internet censorship research group, the block has been in place since late April.
The Wikimedia foundation said in a statement that it did not receive any notice of the censorship.
Wikipedia joins a growing list of websites that cannot be accessed in China, which in recent years has tightened its grip on access to information online. 
Google, Facebook and YouTube are among the sites already banned, forcing Internet users to use virtual private networks, or VPN, to bypass what has become known as the “Great Firewall” of China.
Reporters Without Border’s 2019 World Press Freedom index ranks China at 177 on a list of 180 countries analyzed. 
China is not just issuing censorships locally, but is also attempting to infiltrate foreign media in an attempt to deter criticism and spread propaganda.
Wikipedia is also blocked in Turkey.

mercredi 13 mars 2019

Chinese Satellite

Vietnam’s Communist Party Ousts Historian Who Criticized Its China Policy
By Mike Ives

The historian Tran Duc Anh Son said that Vietnam has irrefutable claims to islands in the South China Sea that China claims as its own.

A prominent Vietnamese historian who criticized his government for not doing more to challenge Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea has been ousted from Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party over comments he made on Facebook.
The political purge of Tran Duc Anh Son, an expert on Vietnam’s claims in the South China Sea, is a rare window into how the party handles dissent among its rank-and-file members.
It may also underline the sensitivities around Vietnam’s handling of its relationship with China, its largest trading partner and former imperial occupier.
Vietnam’s state-run news media reported last week that Dr. Son, who is in his early 50s and worked for years at a state-run research institute in the central city of Danang, was expelled for posting "false" information and violating a code that governs party members’ behavior.
“I knew this day would come,” Dr. Son said in an interview over a messaging service.
He closed his Facebook account this week, saying he needed more time to work on book projects and transition to a new job as the director of a publishing house.
Dr. Son said the Facebook comment that got him in the most trouble was a short question he posed last September under a cartoon that obliquely criticized the government.
A character in the cartoon said: “Seventy-three years ago they corralled people to a rally to listen to the Declaration of Independence. Seventy-three years later they forbid people to gather to celebrate Independence Day.”
That was an apparent reference to a famous 1945 speech by Ho Chi Minh in which the Vietnamese dictator declared his country’s independence from France, and an oblique criticism of the Communist Party’s current leaders, who have escalated repression of political dissidents.
Dr. Son said the question he wrote underneath the cartoon — “Is this true?” — prompted a monthslong investigation by Danang’s Communist Party Central Committee.
He said he was also investigated for a Facebook comment — “How have things become this bad?” — that he left under a post featuring two articles in the state-run news media about the country’s education minister.
Even though many Vietnamese have low opinions of the Communist Party, its members generally avoid criticizing it for fear of repercussions that would affect their livelihoods, said Mai Thanh Son, a senior researcher at the state-affiliated Institute of Social Sciences in central Vietnam.
“The expulsion of Tran Duc Anh Son is a thoughtless decision,” he said.
“It’s like releasing a tiger into the forest, and it contributes to stripping away the cowardly face of the ruling apparatus that the party represents.”
In January, a cybersecurity law took effect in Vietnam that requires technology companies with users there to set up offices and store data in the country, and disclose user data to the authorities without a court order.
Vietnam’s new cybersecurity law was meant to let the government better surveil its critics on Facebook, the country’s most popular social media platform.
Facebook declined to comment on the record about Dr. Son’s account.
The Foreign Ministry did not respond to emailed questions about Dr. Son’s expulsion from the party, including whether his criticism of Vietnam’s South China Sea policies had played a role.
Vietnam has clashed repeatedly at sea with China, which claims most of the waterway as its own. Notably, in 2014 a state-owned Chinese oil company towed an oil rig to waters near Danang, provoking a tense maritime standoff and anti-Chinese riots at several Vietnamese industrial parks. The Communist Party fears a repeat of such anti-China-fueled Vietnamese nationalism, because critics question why the government does not take a harder line against Beijing.
Chinese officials and scholars seek to justify Beijing’s claim to sovereignty over South China Sea waters that encircle the disputed Paracel and Spratly archipelagos by citing maps and other evidence from the 1940s and ’50s.
But Dr. Son and other Vietnamese historians argue that the Nguyen dynasty, which ruled present-day Vietnam from 1802 to 1945, wielded clear administrative control over the Paracels, decades before post-revolutionary China showed any interest in them.
Dr. Son is a former director of a fine arts museum in Hue, Vietnam’s imperial capital, and a specialist in Nguyen-era porcelain.
He developed an interest in Vietnam’s territorial claims as a student poking around archives of old maps and documents.
In 2009, officials in Danang asked him to pursue his research on Vietnam’s maritime claims on the government’s behalf.
He subsequently spent years traveling the world in search of material, including as a Fulbright scholar at Yale University.
Dr. Son has said the historical evidence of Vietnam’s maritime claims is so irrefutable that the government should mount a legal challenge to China’s activities in waters around some of the sea’s disputed islands, as the Philippines successfully did in a case that ended in 2016.
“I’m always against the Chinese,” he told The New York Times during an interview in 2017.
But he said at the time that Vietnam’s top leaders were “slaves” to Beijing who preferred to keep the old maps and other documents hidden.
“They always say to me, ‘Mr. Son, please keep calm,’” he said.
“‘Don’t talk badly about China.’”
The city of Danang, where Dr. Son lives and works, once had a reputation for its powerful, family-based networks that were willing to ignore dictates from the central government, said Bill Hayton, an author of books about Vietnam and the South China Sea and an associate fellow at Chatham House, a research institute based in London.
But Mr. Hayton noted that Vietnam’s current leadership, led by the Communist Party’s general secretary, Nguyen Phu Trong, has lately disciplined some key Danang political figures, including firing Nguyen Xuan Anh, the head of the city’s Communist Party Central Committee.
Even though Danang officials presumably supported and financed Dr. Son’s research, he added, “the current Vietnamese leadership does not want to rock the boat with Beijing and seems determined to keep a lid on criticism of China’s actions in the South China Sea.”

mardi 5 février 2019

China’s Online Censorship Stifles Trade, Too

When the Chinese government blocks foreign internet companies for political reasons, the United States should treat the tactic as the anticompetitive economic strategy that it is.
By Tim Wu

As China and the United States engage in high-level negotiations over a possible trade deal, it’s puzzling to see what’s been left off the table: the Chinese internet market. 
China blocks or hinders nearly every important foreign competitor online, including Google, Facebook, Wikipedia in Chinese, Pinterest, Line (the major Japanese messaging company), Reddit and The New York Times. 
Even Peppa Pig, a British cartoon character and internet video sensation, has been censored on and off; an editorial in the Communist Party’s official People’s Daily newspaper once warned that she could “destroy children’s youth.”
China has long defended its censorship as a political matter, a legitimate attempt to protect citizens from what the government regards as “harmful information,” including material that “spreads unhealthy lifestyles and pop culture.” 
But you don’t need to be a trade theorist to realize that the censorship is also an extremely effective barrier to international trade. 
The global internet economy is worth at least $8 trillion and growing, yet the Trump administration has focused chiefly on manufacturing, technology transfers and agriculture, and does not seem to have pressed for concessions on this issue.
Sheltered from American, Japanese and European competition, Chinese internet businesses have grown enormously over the past decade. 
Nine of the world’s 20 largest internet firms, by market value, are now Chinese. 
Some of this growth reflects the skill and innovation of Chinese engineers, a vibrant start-up culture and the success of Chinese business in catering to local tastes. 
But it’s hard to believe that this has been unaided by censorship.
And the barriers to foreign competition have more than just economic effects. 
Without any better options, Chinese users are forced to put up with companies like Tencent, which owns the private messaging app WeChat, and the online payment company Ant Financial, whose privacy violations are, amazingly, even more troubling than those of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. 
By tolerating Chinese censorship, the United States encourages other countries to do the same.
When it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, China agreed to a broad liberalization of trade in services, including data processing and telecommunications. 
China’s internet policies must be understood as a violation of these commitments. 
China will presumably counter that its internet policies are “necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order,” invoking the relevant exception to the World Trade Organization’s rules. 
But while that exception might justify bans on gambling sites or even Peppa Pig, in the case of most of China’s internet barriers the real purpose seems to be the protection of homegrown business interests.
Why is the United States not demanding change? 
It’s not as if we lack leverage. 
Chinese firms like Tencent and the online retailer JD.com have aggressively pursued operations in the United States, seeking to take advantage of our open internet and open market. 
The Office of the United States Trade Representative even cited Chinese internet blocking as a trade barrier in 2016. 
Why allow a country to do business here if it won’t let us do business there? 
The basic principle of trade policy is reciprocity: Lower your barriers and we’ll lower ours. 
When it comes to the internet economy, the United States has unilaterally disarmed and is being played for a fool.
Particularly baffling is the attitude of the major American internet firms, the victims of China’s internet trade policy, whose strategy has largely been one of appeasement. 
Google did retreat from the Chinese market in 2010 because of concerns about censorship and industrial espionage, and it did complain for a while about Chinese obstructions. 
Yet last year we learned that Google was effectively giving up the fight, building a censored search engine for the Chinese market and begging for access.
Also disappointing has been Facebook’s approach. 
Even though Facebook has been banned in China for years, Mark Zuckerberg, its chief executive, has made embarrassing efforts to ingratiate himself with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. (At one point gossip pages even reported that Zuckerberg asked, in vain, for Xi to give an honorary Chinese name to his unborn child.)
Appeasement does not make effective foreign policy or trade policy. 
The United States, with the world’s largest economy and its most important internet sector, should be negotiating from a position of strength. 
If the Trump administration wants to be tough with China on trade, it should demand meaningful access to the Chinese internet market, on pain of denial of access to American markets for Chinese firms.
That is how trade negotiation has always proceeded, and the internet ought to be no exception. 
We otherwise run the risk of winning the battle for the past while surrendering the battle for the future.

lundi 17 décembre 2018

China’s hybrid warfare against Taiwan

By David Ignatius

A political campaign rally in Taipei, Taiwan, on Nov. 23. 

TAIPEI, Taiwan — As Taiwanese military experts describe how their forces could punish a Chinese invasion of the island, they might almost be describing D-Day in 1944: amphibious landings, fighter planes dueling for air supremacy, and tank battles for control of the capital.
Chinese claims that they could subdue Taiwan in 100 hours are “impossible” because of the island’s stiff defenses, one expert insists. 
“If they fail within 100 hours, with great casualties, they might reconsider,” he argues, because of the risk for “internal instability" for Xi Jinping.
The specter of war across the Taiwan Strait has animated military planners since 1949, when Gen. Chiang Kai-shek fled here with his nationalist army after the Communist Party gained control of mainland China. 
The Ministry of Defense distributes a book with glossy photos of Taiwan’s defensive weapons and stirring captions: Air force jets are “Eagles that Dominate the Skies;” a navy destroyer is a “Blade that dominates the sea.”
But traditional military combat may be the least of Taiwan’s worries. 
More immediate and threatening, is the daily campaign to undermine Taiwan’s democracy and promote fealty to Beijing. 
This hybrid warfare is cheaper and harder for an open, democratic society such as Taiwan to resist than a conventional military assault. 
And it’s a challenge that Taiwanese experts are struggling to understand and address.
Taiwan’s self-defense dilemma was discussed in nearly every conversation here this week during a visit by a bipartisan study group organized by the German Marshall Fund, of which I’m a trustee. Polls show that Taiwanese favor the current balance, in which the country maintains its own democracy but doesn’t formally assert independence. 
Beijing keeps squeezing, in what appears to many Taiwanese to be an effort to make the island a province of China, without using overt force.
“The Taiwanese have faced an immense conventional military threat for decades, yet now they also have to be concerned about Beijing’s increasingly sophisticated efforts to lure their citizens back to ‘mother China.’ 
It’s a challenge that requires significant coordination across government and civil society, and ultimately can’t be solved by more missiles or jets,” argues Jamie Fly, a former Republican Senate staffer who organized the German Marshall Fund trip.
Here’s how one Taiwanese official explains the subtle Chinese threat, spread through social media, newspapers and television in an influence campaign that touches every business, farm and worker: “If you support the DPP [the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which favors Taiwanese self-determination], the whole island will be punished. But if you help Beijing, you will benefit.”
Explains another senior official: “To promote peaceful unification, China will try to influence this country so that Taiwan will have a more China-friendly government.” 
The showdown will come in the 2020 presidential election, which will pit a pro-Beijing party against the DPP.
Ketty Chen, vice president of the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, explains that every day, pro-Beijing operatives post thousands of pieces of disinformation on Facebook and other social media platforms. 
For example, a site called “I love to exercise” intersperses fitness tips with propaganda against President Tsai Ing-wen, a DPP-backed lawyer and economist elected in 2016.
“We want a healthy relationship with China, but we don’t want to be ruled by China,” argues Raymond Sung, director of Taiwan Democracy Watch, at a roundtable organized by the Prospect Foundation, a government-backed think tank. 
A similar desire for self-determination was expressed by a half-dozen students at National Chengchi University. 
“We’re trying to make a new identity for ourselves on this island,” explained one student. 
“We’re going through a nation-building process.”
How can the United States help militarily? 
It’s tricky.
Taiwan wants American weapons and tactical support, but not so directly or visibly that it triggers a Chinese escalation. 
If the United States considers a show of force to deter Chinese military action, for example, the Taiwanese believe that a joint effort, conducted with other nations, would be safer than unilateral U.S. action.
The Taiwanese also insist that they wouldn’t need direct U.S. combat support if conflict began; indeed, U.S. intervention might prove counterproductive by drawing a punishing Chinese response.
President Tsai is walking a tightrope as she manages these security issues. 
Her goal is to preserve the status quo, but I erred in a recent column by implying that she accepts the idea that there is one China and Taiwan is part of it. 
Instead, Tsai’s aides explain, she wants a continuation of peaceful relations across the strait and a status that’s neither independence nor unification — the same middle ground that polls say is overwhelmingly favored by Taiwanese.

mercredi 1 août 2018

Tech Quisling

Mark Zuckerberg, give up on China before you embarrass yourself even more
By Isaac Stone FishJuly 31 at 2:31 PM

In a box in my parents’ basement sits a videotape featuring perhaps the most embarrassing thing Mark Zuckerberg has ever done: dance to the Backstreet Boys’ “Everybody (Backstreet’s Back)” at our summer camp talent show. 
The second most embarrassing thing Zuckerberg has ever done? 
Prostrate himself to Beijing
And as the years go by and Facebook grows more mature, it’s becoming more painful to watch.
Zuckerberg blurbed Chinese Communist Party Secretary Xi Jinping’s book “The Governance of China” — which one reviewer called “a mix of stilted Communist Party argot, pleasant-sounding generalizations, and ‘Father Knows Best’ style advice” — and displayed it on his desk when China’s then-Internet czar Lu Wei visited him in December 2014. 
In March 2016, he posted a picture of himself cheerfully running through Tiananmen Square, the site of the infamous June 1989 massacre. 
In November 2016, The New York Times revealed that Zuckerberg facilitated the development of a tool that would help Beijing censor Facebook. 
Zuckerberg even asked Xi Jinping to give a Chinese name to his unborn daughter.
In response, Chinese officials toy with him. 
“I didn’t say Facebook could not enter China,” Lu said in October 2014, “but nor did I say that it could.” (Zuckerberg wasted his time courting Lu: Beijing just accused the now-disgraced official of taking a “huge amount” of bribes.
And on July 25, the New York Times reported that the government had revoked Facebook’s permission to set up an innovation hub in China — just hours after notice of approval appeared in a government database. (In what was almost certainly just an unfortunate coincidence, the report of Beijing yanking its approval came on the day that Facebook announced lackluster earnings, sending its stock down by roughly 20 percent.)
In another article published that day, the Global Times, China’s top Internet troll masquerading as a newspaper, quoted a Chinese analyst making the absurd claim that “China is more open in the high-tech sector compared with the U.S.” 
Facebook could succeed in China, the analyst said, but first it has to “understand and obey Chinese laws and regulations.”
To avoid further embarrassment, Zuckerberg should give up on entering China. 
Yes, China has more than twice the number of Internet users as the United States, and Facebook believes it cannot be a truly global company without China. 
And yes, even though Facebook is blocked in China, it is the company’s largest ad market in Asia, because Chinese companies use Facebook to sell to consumers globally.
But the costs of Facebook (as well as Instagram and WhatsApp, both also blocked on the mainland) entering China clearly outweigh the benefits — a calculus that has changed little since Beijing blocked the company in 2009.
As Chinese Internet regulators, government officials, academics and even Xi himself have slyly reminded Facebook for years, the company won’t succeed in China unless it plays by Chinese rules. That almost certainly means censoring content, storing servers in China and giving Beijing access to all Facebook accounts anywhere.
This has been a terrible year for Facebook’s reputation as a moral steward of America’s data. 
But if Facebook yields to Beijing, things could get far worse.
Consider what happened to Yahoo. 
In 2004, Yahoo gave Beijing information about the online activities of Chinese dissident journalist Shi Tao, who was later sentenced to 10 years in prison. 
Hauled in front of Congress, the company’s co-founder, Jerry Yang, found himself excoriated. “While technologically and financially you are giants, morally you are pygmies,” the late Rep. Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, told him
How unkindly would Congress and Americans see Zuckerberg if he facilitated the arrest of a Chinese dissident, or if he helped Beijing more effectively arrest Muslims in East Turkestan and send them to concentration camps? (Yes. That is a thing that is happening.)
Let’s say Beijing allowed Facebook to operate in China. 
It would face one of the world’s toughest Internet markets, with several battle-ready competitors — companies like Tencent, which owns China’s most popular social networking app, WeChat; and Alibaba, which seems to own everything else. 
Beijing far prefers WeChat because it has access to every message sent on the platform, because Tencent’s founder, Pony Ma, needs the approval of the party to stay out of prison, and because it wants Chinese companies to succeed. 
Internet regulators and local government officials would stymie and extort Facebook every chance they could.
To imagine an even unlikelier hypothetical, let’s take Beijing at its word and imagine it would allow Facebook a fair playing field. 
Two well-funded Facebook clones — RenRen and Kaixin001 — lost the social media battle to WeChat years ago. 
“Facebook launching in China,” the writer Charlie Custer wrote in the blog Tech in Asia, “would be like MySpace relaunching in the U.S.”
Facebook does have one real chance of succeeding in China: Localize. Become a Chinese company. 
Follow the guidelines Xi set out in a major April 2018 speech and “strengthen online positive propaganda, and unequivocally adhere to the correct political direction and the guidance of public opinion.”
The world now has two dominant Internet models. 
There is the American model, which although it sometimes facilitates hate speech, monopolies and anarchy, prioritizes the free exchange of ideas. 
And there is Beijing’s model, which prioritizes national sovereignty, order and blandness. 
Facebook can stay an American company, or become a Chinese one. 
For Facebook, there is no middle ground.

samedi 28 juillet 2018

U.S. Tech Executioners

How U.S. tech powers China's surveillance state
By Erica Pandey

American companies eager to enter China’s massive market brace themselves for potential intellectual property theft or forced technology transfers. 
But there’s another threat at play: their technology is being used for surveillance.
The big picture: China has sophisticated systems of state surveillance, and these systems have long been powered by technologies developed by American companies. 
Beijing has used U.S. tech to surveil its citizens, violate human rights and modernize its military.

The entanglement
Companies doing business in China often get caught in a web: Beijing uses its economic leverage to draw them in and then uses their technology for police-state tactics. 
As a result, "American companies are enabling and complicit in major human rights abuses," says Elsa Kania, a technology and national security expert at the Center for a New American Security.
Another concern is American universities and research institutions partnering with Chinese companies that work with state security, she says.
Thermo Fisher Scientific, a Massachusetts company, has supplied the Chinese government with DNA sequencers that it is now using to collect the DNA of ethnic minorities in East Turkestan, Human Rights Watch reports
At a Thursday hearing, Sen. Marco Rubio called Thermo Fisher's operations in East Turkestan "sick."
iFlyTek is a Chinese company that recently launched a 5-year partnership with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Beijing has used iFlytek’s voice recognition technology "to develop a pilot surveillance system that can automatically identify targeted voices in phone conversations," according to Human Rights Watch.
Cisco, in 2011, participated in a Chinese public safety project that set up 500,000 cameras in Chongqing, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Yahoo, in 2005, gave the personal information of a Chinese journalist to China's government. 
That information was used to put the man in jail.
Tech giants, like Facebook, Apple and LinkedIn, have faced scrutiny in the past for censoring or offering to censor content in China.
"Not all of these companies realize the extent to which their activities could be exploited," Kania says.
Companies often take on projects for the Chinese government in the name of curbing "crime", according to Scott Kennedy of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, but "the boundary between promoting public safety and protecting the state is increasingly blurred with these types of technologies."

The other side: Axios reached out to all of the companies listed above. 
The responses we received by deadline:
Thermo Fisher Scientific: "We work with governments to contribute to good global policy."
Cisco said it "has never custom-tailored our products for any market, and the products that we sell in China are the same products we sell everywhere else."
Oath, which now owns Yahoo: “We’re deeply committed to protecting and advocating for the rights to free expression and privacy of our users around the world."
LinkedIn: "In order to create value for our members in China and around the world, we need to implement the Chinese government’s restrictions on content, when and to the extent required."

The stakes
"A lot of people wanted very much to believe that once China had exposure to the outside world, political liberalization would come with economic liberalization," Sophie Richardson, China director at Human Rights Watch, tells Axios. 
"They're getting a lot richer and a lot more powerful and no more politically liberal."

What's next:
Some companies have pulled out of China of their own accord in the past. 
Google refused to censor its search engine in China in 2010, leading to its ouster from the country. Other companies may follow suit if they realize their technology is being misused, says Kania.
If companies cannot be held accountable by internal ethics guidelines, shareholders or users, the government may need to step in through export controls or limits on funding to researchers that collaborate with China, she says.
Worth noting: There's already a U.S. law that prohibits the export of crime-control products to China, but the sale of cameras and other dual use technologies that could be used for surveillance are not banned, reports the Wall Street Journal.

jeudi 26 juillet 2018

The spurned sycophant

After a single day, Facebook is kicked out of China again
By Shannon Liao

Just one day after Facebook gained permission to open a subsidiary in China, the government pulled the business filing and began to censor mentions of the news. 
An anonymous source tells The New York Times that Facebook no longer has permission to launch the startup incubator it had planned.
Facebook planned to open up a $30 million subsidiary called Facebook Technology (Hangzhou) and run a startup incubator that would have made small investments and gave advice to local businesses.
The sudden rejection stems from a disagreement between Chinese authorities, the source told the Times. 
Local officials in Zhejiang, an eastern province that houses Alibaba’s headquarters, gave Facebook the initial permission, but the Cyberspace Administration of China, Beijing’s internet regulator, had not.
According to screenshots of the business filing on the remaining social media posts that haven’t been censored, the subsidiary had been listed as wholly owned by Facebook Hong Kong Limited. Facebook does have a sales office in Hong Kong, which isn’t subject to the rules and censorship of the mainland. 
In a statement yesterday, the company told The Verge, “We are interested in setting up an innovation hub in Zhejiang to support Chinese developers, innovators and start-ups.”
This would have been the first time that Facebook successfully expanded into China after Beijing blocked the platform in 2009 following its use by East Turkestan independence activists in the Ürümqi riots. 
Facebook previously tried to open an office in Beijing in 2015 and got as far as obtaining a permit, but ultimately, it was unsuccessful, a pattern that seems to be echoed here. 
Last year, Facebook quietly launched an app in China called Colorful Balloons that let users share photos with friends. 
Oculus, Facebook’s VR company, also has an office in Shanghai.
Last week in an interview with Recode, chief executive Mark Zuckerberg expressed significant doubt that his company could successfully reach China. 
When asked where Facebook was on China, he responded, “I mean, we’re blocked.” 
He then elaborated on the grim situation: “I mean, we’re a long time away from doing anything. At some point, I think that we need to figure it out, but we need to figure out a solution that is in line with our principles and what we wanna do, and in line with the laws there, or else it’s not gonna happen. Right now, there isn’t an intersection.”

vendredi 8 juin 2018

Tech Quisling: The Prime Minister Wants Mark Zuckerberg In Australia To Answer Questions About Facebook Privacy

The company's reported data sharing arrangement with rogue Chinese company Huawei has got local politicians angry.
By Josh Taylor






Zuckerberg is  "like a Red Guard waving the White Book," says Hu Jia
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has thrown his support behind a push to have Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg appear before Australia's parliamentary committee on national security over news the company shared user data with Chinese telecommunications manufacturer Huawei.
It was reported yesterday that Facebook had entered into a data sharing arrangement with several Chinese manufacturers including Huawei, Lenovo, OPPO, and TCL, and allowed these companies to collect user data including address books, likes, and friendships.
Facebook has these types of relationships with many companies, including Apple and Google, but politicians in the US, the UK, and Australia have raised concerns about the sharing of the data with Chinese companies, given the relationships between some Chinese-owned companies and the Chinese government.
The deputy chair of the joint standing committee on intelligence and security, Labor MP Anthony Byrne, is so concerned over the data handed to Huawei that he has indicated that Zuckerberg would be invited to give evidence before the committee.
This call was backed by PM Turnbull, who said he would welcome Zuckerberg giving evidence in Australia.
"Well, certainly there are a lot of concerns about Facebook, about privacy ... And I would welcome Facebook coming and testifying before our parliamentary committees, yes," he said.



"We'd love to see the boss. But, naturally, he is the founder, but the important thing everyone is paying a lot of attention to [is] the issue of privacy. And, of course, the question of whether people really know what is being done with their personal data."
Turnbull said Facebook had become dominant in people's lives, and it was important to keep a close eye on how data is being used, and ensure people consent to their data being used.
Facebook has not yet indicated whether Zuckerberg would appear, but the Facebook founder did not turn up to face UK lawmakers in April, despite repeated requests. 
He did, however, front the European Parliament in May.
The Australian parliamentary committee is due to hand down its report on Thursday on legislation aimed at cracking down on foreign interference in Australia from countries including China.
Huawei is also under closer scrutiny in Australia at the moment as the government is considering whether to use new powers to veto mobile telecommunications companies such as Telstra, Optus and Vodafone from using Huawei technology in the construction of their 5G mobile networks.
The company has already provided equipment for some of the nation's 4G mobile networks, but was banned from tendering for the National Broadband Network.