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

vendredi 29 novembre 2019

China's Final Solution: TikTok parent company ByteDance is working with China's Communist Party to spread propaganda on East Turkestan

  • ByteDance, the company that owns the viral video app TikTok, is working closely with China's government to facilitate human-rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in China's western colony of East Turkestan.
  • The report, titled "Mapping more of China's tech giants: AI and surveillance," looked at the way major Chinese tech companies were involved in state-sanctioned surveillance and censorship using artificial intelligence packaged as popular apps and websites.
  • ByteDance is collaborating with public security bureaus across China, including in East Turkestan where it plays an active role in disseminating the party-state's propaganda on East Turkestan.
  • TikTok has been in the spotlight after it suspended the account of a US teenager Feroza Aziz after she posted a viral video on the app that was disguised as a makeup tutorial but criticized the Chinese government's treatment of Uighurs in East Turkestan.
By Rosie Perper

The Chinese company that owns the viral video app TikTok is working closely with China's government to facilitate human-rights abuses against Uighur Muslims in the western colony of East Turkestan, according to a new report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The report, titled "Mapping more of China's tech giants: AI and surveillance," looked at the way major Chinese tech companies were involved in state-sanctioned surveillance and censorship using artificial intelligence packaged as popular apps and websites.
ByteDance, the parent company of the viral-video sensation TikTok, was mentioned in the report alongside other major Chinese tech companies including Huawei, Tencent, and Alibaba, all of which -- ASPI wrote -- "are engaged in deeply unethical behavior in East Turkestan, where their work directly supports and enables mass human rights abuses."
China is running thousands detention centers and forced labor camps in East Turkestan. 
Interviews with people who were held in the facilities reveal beatings and food deprivation, as well as medical experimentation on prisoners.
In its research, ASPI singled out ByteDance and accused it of acting alongside the Communist Party to enforce the country's strict censorship laws.
"ByteDance collaborates with public security bureaus across China, including in East Turkestan where it plays an active role in disseminating the party-state's propaganda on East Turkestan," the report said.

ByteDance operates two versions of its viral video app — a China-based app called Douyin and the global app TikTok.
TikTok is one of the most downloaded phone apps in the world and has already entered more than 150 global markets.
Previous reports cited by ASPI indicated that "East Turkestan Internet Police" had a presence on Douyin in 2018 and created a "new public security and internet social governance model."
ASPI also cited recent reporting that said China's Ministry of Public Security's Press and Publicity Bureau signed an agreement with ByteDance that allowed ministry and police officials to have their own Douyin accounts to push ministry propaganda. 
The report also said ByteDance would "increase its offline cooperation with the police department," though it was unclear what that partnership would entail.
ASPI added that other tech giants, including Alibaba and Huawei, contributed cloud computing and surveillance technologies in East Turkestan.
In October, the US blacklisted 28 Chinese organizations and companies accused of facilitating human-rights abuses in East Turkestan.
And earlier this month, sources told Reuters that the US opened a national security investigation into ByteDance after its $1 billion acquisition of the US social-media app Musical.ly in 2017.
TikTok has been in the spotlight after suspending the account of a US teenager named Feroza Aziz who posted a viral video on the app that was disguised as a makeup tutorial but criticized the Chinese government's treatment of Uighurs in East Turkestan.
The company apologized in a statement published to its website on Wednesday, saying that it stood behind its initial decision to suspend Aziz's account but that its moderation process "will not be perfect."
East Turkestan has a population of about 10 million, many of whom are Uighur or other ethnic minorities. 
In May, US Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall Schriver said "at least a million but likely closer to 3 million citizens" were detained detention camps.
Satellite images reviewed by the Washington-based East Turkistan National Awakening Movement earlier this month identified at least 465 detention centers, labor camps, and suspected prisons in East Turkestan.
And a recent leak of classified Chinese government documents known as the "China Cables" laid out a manual for exactly how the detention centers were to operate, preventing escape by double locking all the doors and using a "points system" based on behavior that is linked "directly to rewards, punishments, and family visits".

vendredi 7 juin 2019

WeChat and the Surveillance State

WeChat is the most powerful weapon of social control for the Chinese government.
By Stephen McDonell

China's WeChat is a site for social interaction, a form of currency, a dating app, a tool for sporting teams and deliverer of news: Twitter, Facebook, Googlemaps, Tinder and Apple Pay all rolled into one. 
But it is also an ever more powerful weapon of social control for the Chinese government.
I've just been locked out of WeChat (or Weixin 微信 as it is known in Chinese) and, to get back on, have had to pass through some pretty Orwellian steps -- steps which have led others to question why I went along with it.
One reason is that life in Beijing would be extremely difficult without WeChat. 
The other is that I could not have written this piece without experiencing the stages which have now clearly put my image, and even my voice, on some sort of biometric database of troublemakers.
I was in Hong Kong to cover the enormous candlelight vigil marking 30 years since the People's Liberation Army was ordered to open fire on its own people to remove the mostly student protesters who'd been gathering in and around Tiananmen Square for months in June 1989.
This moment in history has been all but erased from public discourse on mainland China but in Hong Kong, with its special status in the Chinese-speaking world, people turn out every year to remember the bloody crackdown.
This time round the crowd was particularly huge, with estimates ranging up to 180,000.
Naturally I took photos of the sea of people holding candles and singing, and posted some of these on my WeChat "moments".

Tiananmen's tank man: The image that China forgot

The post contained no words -- just photos.
Chinese friends started asking on WeChat what the event was? 
Why were people gathering? 
Where was it?
That such questions were coming from young professionals here shows the extent to which knowledge of Tiananmen 1989 has been made to disappear in China.
I answered a few of them, rather cryptically, then suddenly I was locked out of WeChat.
"Your login has been declined due to account exceptions. Try to log in again and proceed as instructed," came the message on the screen.
Then, when I tried to log back in, a new message appeared: "This WeChat account has been suspected of spreading malicious rumours and has been temporarily blocked…"
It means posting photos of an actual event taking place, without commentary, amounts to "spreading malicious rumours" in China.
I was given time to try and log in again the next day after my penalty had been served.
When I did I had to push "agree and unblock" under the stated reason of "spread malicious rumours".
So this rumour-monger clicked on "agree".
Then came a stage I was not prepared for. 
"Faceprint is required for security purposes," it said.
I was instructed to hold my phone up -- to "face front camera straight on" -- looking directly at the image of a human head. 
Then told to "Read numbers aloud in Mandarin Chinese".
My voice was captured by the App at the same time it scanned my face.
Afterwards a big green tick: "Approved"
Apart from being creepy you can only imagine the potential use of this type of data.
No doubt I have now joined some list of suspicious individuals in the hands of goodness knows which Chinese government agencies.
In China pretty much everyone has WeChat. 
I don't know a single person without it. 
Developed by tech giant Tencent it is an incredible app. 
It's convenient. It works. It's fun. 
It was ahead of the game on the global stage and it has found its way into all corners of people's existence.
It delivers to the Communist Party a life map of pretty much everybody in this country, citizens and foreigners alike.
Capturing the face and voice image of everyone who was suspended for mentioning the Tiananmen crackdown anniversary in recent days would be considered very useful for those who want to monitor anyone who might potentially cause problems.
When I placed details of this entire process on Twitter others were asking: why cave in to such a Big Brother intrusion on your privacy?
They've probably not lived in China.
It is hard to imagine a life here without it.
When you meet somebody in a work context they don't give you a name card any more, they share their WeChat; if you play for a football team training details are on WeChat; children's school arrangements, WeChat; Tinder-style dates, WeChat; movie tickets, WeChat; news stream, WeChat; restaurant locations, WeChat; paying for absolutely everything from a bowl of noodles to clothes to a dining room table… WeChat.
People wouldn't be able to speak to their friends or family without it.
So the censors who can lock you out of Wechat hold real power over you.
The app -- the least secure of its type in the world -- has essentially got you over a barrel.
If you want to have a normal life in China, you had better not say anything controversial about the Communist Party and especially not about its dictator, Xi Jinping.
This is China 2019.

vendredi 10 mai 2019

China's crimes against humanity

INSIDE WECHAT MASSIVE SURVEILLANCE OPERATION
By Isobel Cockerell

It was 2011, and she was living in Hotan, an oasis town in East Turkestan, in northwest China. 
The 30-year-old, Nurjamal Atawula, loved to take pictures of her children and exchange strings of emoji with her husband while he was out. 
In 2013, Atawula downloaded WeChat, the Chinese social messaging app. 
Not long after, rumors circulated among her friends: The government could track your location through your phone. 
At first, she didn’t believe them.
In early 2016, police started making routine checks on Atawula’s home. 
Her husband was regularly called to the police station. 
The police informed him they were suspicious of his WeChat activity. 
Atawula’s children began to cower in fear at the sight of a police officer.
The harassment and fear finally reached the point that the family decided to move to Turkey. Atawula’s husband, worried that Atawula would be arrested, sent her ahead while he stayed in East Turkestan and waited for the children’s passports.
“The day I left, my husband was arrested,” Atawula said. 
When she arrived in Turkey in June 2016, her phone stopped working—and by the time she had it repaired, all her friends and relatives had deleted her from their WeChat accounts. 
They feared that the government would punish them for communicating with her.
She was alone in Istanbul and her digital connection with life in East Turkestan was over. 
Apart from a snatched Skype call with her mother for 11 and a half minutes at the end of December 2016, communication with her relatives has been completely cut. 
“Sometimes I feel like the days I was with my family are just my dreams, as if I have been lonely all my life—ever since I was born,” she said.
Atawula now lives alone in Zeytinburnu, a working-class neighborhood in Istanbul. 
It’s home to Turkey’s largest population of Uyghurs, the mostly Muslim ethnic minority native to East Turkestan, a vast, resource-rich land of deserts and mountains along China’s ancient Silk Road trade route.
Atawula is one of around 34,000 Uyghurs in Turkey. 
She is unable to contact any of her relatives—via phone, WeChat, or any other app. 
“I feel very sad when I see other people video chatting with their families,” she says. 
“I think, why can’t we even hear the voice of our children?”
For Uyghurs in East Turkestan, any kind of contact from a non-Chinese phone number, though not officially illegal, can result in instant arrest. 
Most Uyghurs in Turkey have been deleted by their families on social media. 
And many wouldn’t dare try to make contact, for fear Chinese authorities would punish their relatives. 
It’s just one of the ways Xi Jinping’s government maintains a tightly controlled net of surveillance over the Uyghurs in China, and it has a ripple effect on Uyghurs living all over the world.
Zeytinburnu, the Istanbul suburb where Atawula lives, lies behind the city’s winding expressways, and is dotted with restaurants and cafés serving Uyghur cuisine: wide, slippery noodles, lamb kebabs, and green tea. 
The Uyghur separatist flag—a light blue version of the Turkish flag—is a common sight. 
It’s a banned image in China, representing free East Turkestan.
East Turkestan was brought under the Communist Party of China’s control in 1949. 
During the latter half of the 20th century, Uyghur independence was a threat that loomed over the party’s agenda. 
The government tried to stamp out separatism and “assimilate” the Uyghurs by encouraging mass migration of Han Chinese, China’s dominant ethnic group, to East Turkestan.
During the ’90s, riots erupted between Uyghurs and Chinese police. 
In a white paper published in March, the Chinese government defined the riots as “inhuman, anti-social and barbaric acts” perpetrated by separatist groups. 
Amnesty International, meanwhile, described the 1997 protests in Gulja, East Turkestan, as a peaceful demonstration turned massacre, quoting exiled Uyghur activist Rebiya Kadeer
“I have never seen such viciousness in my life,” she said. 
“Chinese soldiers were bludgeoning the demonstrators.”
After the 9/11 attacks, the Chinese government took a page from George W. Bush’s war on terror and began targeting separatist groups in East Turkestan. 
In 2009, bloody ethnic riots broke out between Uyghurs and Han Chinese in Urumqi, the East Turkestan capital. 
Police put the city on lockdown, enforcing an internet blackout and cutting cell phone service. 
It was the beginning of a new policy to control the Uyghur population—digitally.

The WeChat Lockdown
In recent years, China has carried out its crackdown on Islamic extremism via smartphone. 
In 2011, Chinese IT giant Tencent holdings launched a new app called WeChat—known as “Undidar” in the Uyghur language. 
It quickly became a vital communication tool across China.
The launch of WeChat was “a moment of huge relief and freedom,” said Aziz Isa, a Uyghur scholar who has studied Uyghur use of WeChat alongside Rachel Harris at London’s SOAS University. “Never before in Uyghur life had we had the opportunity to use social media in this way,” Isa said, describing how Uyghurs across class divides were openly discussing everything from politics to religion to music.
By 2013, around a million Uyghurs were using the app. 
Harris and Isa observed a steady rise in Islamic content, “most of it apolitical but some of it openly radical and oppositional.” 
Isa remembers being worried by some of the more nationalist content he saw, though he believes it accounted for less than 1 percent of all the posts. 
Most Uyghurs didn’t understand the authorities were watching.
This kind of unrestricted communication on WeChat went on for around a year. 
But in May 2014, the Chinese government enlisted a taskforce to stamp out “malpractice” on instant messaging apps, in particular “rumors and information leading to violence, terrorism, and pornography.” 
WeChat was required to let the government monitor the activity of its users.
Miyesser Mijit, 28, whose name has been changed to protect her family, is a Uyghur master’s student in Istanbul who left East Turkestan in 2014, just before the crackdown. 
During her undergraduate studies in mainland China, she and her Uyghur peers had already learned to use their laptops and phones with caution. 
They feared they would be expelled from university if they were caught expressing their religion online.
Mijit’s brother, who was drafted into the East Turkestan police force in the late 2000s, warned her to watch her language while using technology. 
“He always told me not to share anything about my religion and to take care with my words,” Mijit said. 
She did not take part in the widespread WeChat conversations about religion. 
If her friends sent her messages about Islam, she would delete them immediately, and performed a factory reset on her phone before coming home to East Turkestan for the university vacation period. Her precautions turned out to be insufficient.

A Surveillance State Is Born
The monitoring of Uyghurs was not limited to their smartphones. 
Mijit remembers first encountering facial recognition technology in the summer of 2013. 
Her brother came home from the police station carrying a device slightly bigger than a cellphone. 
He scanned her face and entered her age range as roughly between 20 and 30. 
The device promptly brought up all her information, including her home address. 
Her brother warned her this technology would soon be rolled out across East Turkestan. 
“All your life will be in the record,” he told her.
In May 2014, alongside the WeChat crackdown, China announced a wider “Strike Hard Campaign Against Violent Terrorism.” 
It was a response to several high-profile attacks attributed to Uyghur militants, including a suicide car bombing in Tiananmen Square in 2013 and, in the spring of 2014, a train station stabbing in Kunming followed by a market bombing in Urumqi. 
Authorities zeroed in on ethnic Uyghurs, alongside Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Turkic minorities in East Turkestan.
After being subjected to daily police checks on her home in Urumqi, Mijit decided to leave East Turkestan for Turkey. 
When she returned to China for a vacation in 2015, she saw devices like the one her brother had shown her being used at police checkpoints every few hundred feet. 
Her face was scanned by police the moment she arrived at the city gates. 
“I got off the bus and everyone was checked one by one,” she said. 
She was also greeted by devices affixed to the entrance of every supermarket, mall, and hospital.
Amina Abduwayit, 38, a businesswoman from Urumqi who now lives in Zeytinburnu, remembers being summoned to the police station and having her face scanned and inputted into the police database.
“It was like a monkey show,” she said. 
“They would ask you to stare like this and that. They would ask you to laugh, and you laugh, and ask you to glare and you glare.”
Abduwayit was also asked to give DNA and blood samples to the police. 
This was part of a larger, comprehensive campaign by the Chinese government to build a biometric picture of East Turkestan’s Uyghur population and help track those deemed nonconformists. 
“The police station was full of Uyghurs,” Abduwayit says. 
“All of them were there to give blood samples.”
Finally, Abduwayit was made to give a voice sample to the police. 
“They gave me a newspaper to read aloud for one minute. It was a story about a traffic accident, and I had to read it three times. They thought I was faking a low voice.”
The voice-recognition program was powered by Chinese artificial intelligence giant iFlytek, which claims a 70 percent share of China’s speech recognition industry. 
In August 2017, Human Rights Watch found information indicating iFlytek supplied voiceprint technology to police bureaus in East Turkestan province. 
The company opened an office in Silicon Valley in 2017 and remains open about working “under the guidance of the Ministry of Public Security” to provide “a new experience for public safety and forensic identification,” according to the Chinese version of its website
The company says it offers a particular focus to creating antiterrorism technology.
Human Rights Watch believes the company has been piloting a system in collaboration with the Chinese Ministry of Public Security to monitor telephone conversations. 
“Many party and state leaders including Xi Jinping have inspected and praised the company’s innovative work,” iFlytek’s website reads.
Halmurat Harri, a Finland-based Uyghur activist, visited the city of Turpan in 2016 and was shocked by the psychological impact of near-constant police checks. 
“You feel like you are under water,” he says. 
“You cannot breathe. Every breath you take, you’re careful.”
He remembers driving out to the desert with a friend, who told him he wanted to watch the sunset. They locked their cellphones in the car and walked away. 
“My friend said, ‘Tell me what’s happening outside. Do foreign countries know about the Uyghur oppression?’ We talked for a couple of hours. He wanted to stay there all night.”
To transform East Turkestan into one of the most tightly controlled surveillance states in the world, a vast, gridlike security network had to be created. 
Over 160,000 cameras were installed in the city of Urumqi by 2016, according to China security and surveillance experts Adrian Zenz and James Leibold.
In the year following Chen Quanguo’s 2016 appointment as regional party secretary, more than 100,000 security-related positions were advertised, while security spending leapt by 92 percent—a staggering $8.6 billion increase.

It’s part of a wider story of huge domestic security investment across China, which hit a record $197 billion in 2017. 
Around 173 million cameras now watch China’s citizens. 
In the imminent future, the government has laid out plans to achieve 100 percent video coverage of “key public areas.”
For Uyghurs, “the employment situation in East Turkestan is difficult and limited,” said Zenz. 
A lot of the good jobs require fluency in Chinese—which many Uyghurs don’t have. 
Joining the police force is one of the only viable opportunities open to Uyghurs, who are then tasked with monitoring their own people.

China’s Uyghur Gulags
The government’s efforts to control the people of East Turkestan were not only digital; it also began to imprison them physically. 
In August 2018, a United Nations human rights panel said one million Uyghurs were being held in what amounts to a “massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy.”
At first, China denied the existence of the camps entirely. 
But then, in October 2018, the government announced it had launched “a vocational education and training program” and passed a law legitimizing what they termed “training centers.”
In a September 2018 report, Human Rights Watch found human rights violations in East Turkestan to be of a scope and scale not seen since the Cultural Revolution and that the creation of the camps reflected Beijing’s commitment to “transforming East Turkestan in its own image.”
Gulbahar Jalilova, 54, a Uyghur clothes retailer from Kazakhstan, spent one year, three months and 10 days in detention centers and camps in Urumqi. 
She now lives in Istanbul. 
According to her arrest warrant in China, issued by the Urumqi Public Security Bureau, she was detained “for her suspicious involvement in terrorist activities in the region.” 
Police accused her of money laundering via one of her employees in Urumqi, who was also arrested. Jalilova denies the charges, saying that they were a mere pretext.
Jalilova was taken to a kanshousuo, one of the many temporary detention centers in the East Turkestan capital. 
Over the next 15 months, she was transferred to three different jails and camps in Urumqi. 
She is precise and exacting in her memory of life in detention: a 10-by-20 foot cell, with up to 50 people sitting in tightly packed rows, their feet tucked beneath them.
Jalilova, who has struggled with her memory since being released in August 2018, keeps a notebook where she has written down all the names of the women who were in the cell with her. 
She also notes the reasons for their arrest, which include downloading WhatsApp—a blocked app in China—storing the numbers of prominent Uyghur scholars, and being caught with religious content on their phones.
She remembers how the cell was fitted with cameras on all four sides, with a television mounted above the door. 
“The leaders in Beijing can see you,” the guards told her. 
Once a month, Jalilova said, the guards would play Xi Jinping’s speeches to inmates and make them write letters of remorse. 
“If you wrote something bad, they would punish you,” Jalilova said. 
“You could only say ‘Thank you to the Party’ and ‘I have cleansed myself of this or that’ and ‘I will be a different person once I am released.’”

She was set free in August 2018 and came to Turkey, no longer feeling safe in Kazakhstan, where the government has been accused of deporting Uyghurs back to East Turkestan.

Escape to Turkey
Though no official statistics for the camps exist, the volunteer-run East Turkestan Victims Database has gathered more than 3,000 Uyghur, Kazakh, and other Muslim minorities’ testimonials for their missing relatives. 
It shows that around 73 percent of those recorded as being in detention are men.
It follows that the majority of people who have escaped East Turkestan for Turkey in recent years are women. 
Local activists estimate 65 percent of the Uyghur population in Turkey is female, many separated from their husbands.
Some Uyghur women made their clandestine escape from East Turkestan by fleeing overland, through China and Thailand to Malaysia, before flying to Turkey. 
In Zeytinburnu, they live in a network of shared apartments, making whatever money they can by doing undocumented work in the local textile industry, as tailors or seamstresses.
The women who arrived without their husbands are known among other Uyghurs as “the widows.” Their husbands are trapped in East Turkestan, and they do not know if they are alive, imprisoned, or dead.
Kalbinur Tursun, 35, left East Turkestan in April 2016 with her youngest son Mohamed, the only one of her children who had a passport at the time. 
She left her other children and husband in East Turkestan. 
She was pregnant with her seventh child, a daughter called Marziya whom she feared she would be forced to abort, having already had many more children than China’s two-child policy allows.
When Tursun first arrived in Turkey, she video-called her husband every day over WeChat. 
Tursun believes Chinese police arrested him on June 13, 2016—as that was the last time she spoke to him. 
She was then told by a friend that her husband had been sentenced to 10 years in jail as a result of her decision to leave. 
“I am so afraid my children hate me,” she said.

Turkey is seen as a safer place to go than other Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whose leaders have both recently dismissed the Uyghurs’ plight. 
Uyghurs have come to Turkey in waves from China since the 1950s. 
They are not given work permits, and many hope they will eventually find refuge in Europe or the United States.
Though Turkey has traditionally acted as protector for Uyghurs, whom they view as Turkic kin, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been reluctant to speak up for the Uyghurs in recent years as trade relations with China have improved. (By the same token, the Trump administration has declined to press China on human rights issues in East Turkestan as it negotiates a trade deal with Beijing.)
On February 9, 2019, Hami Aksoy, a spokesman for Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, broke the diplomatic hush. 
It is no longer a secret that more than one million Uyghur Turks incurring arbitrary arrests are subjected to torture and political brainwashing in internment camps and prisons,” Aksoy’s statement read.
Amina Abduwayit, the businesswoman from Urumqi, was afraid to speak freely when she arrived in Turkey in 2015. 
For the first two years after she arrived, she did not dare to greet another Uyghur. 
“Even though I was far away from China, I still lived in fear of surveillance,” she said. 
Though she now feels less afraid, she has not opened her WeChat app in a year and a half.
Others tried to use WeChat to contact their families, but the drip-feed of information became steadily slower. 
In 2016, findings by Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, a research center that monitors methods of information control, showed how the app was censoring its users by tracking their keyword usage
Among the search terms that could trigger official suspicion are any words relating to Uyghur issues such as “2009 Urumqi riots,” “2012 Kashgar riots,” and anything to do with Islam.
In Zeytinburnu, seamstress Tursungul Yusuf, 42, remembers how phone calls and messages from relatives in East Turkestan became increasingly terse as 2017 went on. 
“When we spoke, they’d keep it brief. They’d say, ‘We’re OK, safe.’ They’d speak in code—if someone was jailed in the camps, they would say they’d been ‘admitted to hospital.’ I’d say ‘understood.’ We could not talk freely. My older daughter wrote ‘I am helpless’ on her WeChat status. She then sent me one message, ‘Assalam,’ before deleting me.”
A kind of WeChat code had developed through emoji: A half-fallen rose meant someone had been arrested. 
A dark moon, they had gone to the camps. 
A sun emoji—“I am alive.” 
A flower—“I have been released.”
Messages were becoming more enigmatic by the day. 
Sometimes, a frantic series of messages parroting CPC propaganda would be followed by a blackout in communication. 
Washington, DC-based Uyghur activist Aydin Anwar recalls that where Uyghurs used to write “inshallah” on social media, they now write “CPC.”
On the few occasions she was able to speak with relatives, she said “it sounded like their soul had been taken out of them.” 
A string of pomegranate images were a common theme: the Party’s symbol of ethnic cohesion, the idea that all minorities and Han Chinese people should live harmoniously alongside one another, “like the seeds of a pomegranate.” 
By late 2017, most Uyghurs in Turkey had lost contact with their families completely.

Resilience, Resistance, Resolve
In a book-lined apartment in Zeytinburnu, Abduweli Ayup, a Uyghur activist and poet, coaches Amina Abduwayit, the businesswoman who fled East Turkestan after police took her DNA. 
They’re filming a video they plan to upload to Facebook. 
Ayup films her on his smartphone, while she sits at a table and recounts how her home city of Urumqi was a “digital prison.”
Abduwayit describes how they were afraid to turn the lights on early in the morning, for fear the police would think they were praying. 
She then lists all the members of her family whom she believes have been transferred to detention centers.
Abuwayit is just one of hundreds of Uyghurs in Turkey—and thousands across the world—who have decided to upload their story to the internet.
Since this time last year, a kind of digital revolution has taken place. 
The Finland-based Uyghur activist Halmurat Harri believes he was the first person to film a testimonial
“I want freedom for my parents, freedom for Uyghur,” he said in a cell phone video recorded in his bathroom in Helsinki last April, before shaving off his hair in protest. 
“Then I called people and asked them to make their own testimony videos,” Harri said.
Videos filmed on smartphones from Uyghur kitchens, living rooms, and bedrooms began appearing on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. 
Ayup described how at the beginning, people would “cover their faces and were afraid of their voices being recognized,” but as 2018 progressed, people became braver.
Gene Bunin, a scholar based in Almaty, Kazakhstan, manages the volunteer-run East Turkestan Victims Database, and has cataloged and gathered thousands of testimonials from Uyghurs, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, and other Muslim minorities targeted in East Turkestan.
Bunin noticed that unlike private attempts to make contact, public exposure of missing relatives seemed to push the Chinese authorities to respond. 
This is particularly true for cases where victims had links to Kazakhstan, where the government has been exerting pressure on China to release ethnic Kazakhs. 
“There’s evidence the Chinese government is willing to make concessions for those whose relatives give video testimonies,” Bunin said.
He was told of people being released as little as 24 hours after their relatives posted testimonies online. 
“It’s a strong sign the East Turkestan authorities are reacting to these videos,” he said.
China has recently stepped up its defense of practices in East Turkestan, seemingly in response to broader Western attention. 
In March, Reuters reported that China would invite European diplomats to visit the region. 
That followed a statement by East Turkestan governor Shohrat Zakir that the camps were in fact “boarding schools.”
Harri recently started a hashtag, #MeTooUyghur, encouraging Uyghurs around the world to demand evidence that their families were alive.
Large WhatsApp news groups, with members from the international Uyghur diaspora, have also been a vital source of solidarity for a community deprived of information.
On December 24, 2018, Kalbinur Tursun—the woman who left five of her children in East Turkestan—was sitting in the ladies’ clothing shop she manages in Zeytinburnu, scrolling through a Uyghur WhatsApp group. 
She checks it first thing in the morning, last thing at night, and dozens of times throughout the day, as several hundred Uyghur members post near-constant videos and updates on the crisis in East Turkestan.
She tapped on a video of a room full of Uyghur children, playing a game. 
An off-camera voice shouts “Bizi! Bizi! Bizi!”—Chinese for “Nose! Nose! Nose!” and an excited group of children tap their noses. 
Tursun was astonished.
On the left, she recognized her 6-year-old daughter, Aisha. 
“Her emotion, her laugh … it’s her. It’s like a miracle,” she said. 
“I see my child so much in my dreams, I never imagined I would see her in real life.” 
It had been two years since she had last heard her daughter’s voice.
The video appears to come from one of the so-called “Little Angel Schools” in Hotan province, around 300 miles from Tursun’s native Kashgar, where it’s been reported nearly 3,000 Uyghur children are held. 
Tursun wonders whether her four other children may have been taken even further afield. 
Speaking to Radio Free Asia, a Communist Party official for the province said the orphanages were patrolled by police to “provide security.”
Unlike almost everyone in the global Uyghur diaspora, Nurjamal Atawula managed to find a way to contact her family after the WeChat blackout. 
She used one of the oldest means possible: writing a letter. 
In late 2016, she heard of a woman in Zeytinburnu who regularly traveled back and forth between Turkey and her parents’ village in East Turkestan. 
She asked the woman to take a letter to her family. 
The woman agreed. 
Atawula wrote to her brother and was careful not to include anything border inspection or police might be able to use against him.
“When I was writing the letter, I felt I was living in the dark ages,” Atawula said. 
She gave it to the woman, along with small presents for her children and money she had saved for her family.
A month later, she got a reply. 
The Uyghur woman, who she calls sister, smuggled a letter from her brother out of China, hidden in a packet of tissues.
Atawula sent a reply with her go-between—but after the third trip, the woman disappeared. 
Atawula doesn’t know what happened to her. 
She still writes to her family, but her letters are now kept in a diary, in the hope that one day her children will be able to read them.
It has now been more than two years since Atawula received her brother’s letter. 
She keeps it carefully folded, still in the tissue it came in. 
In that time, she has only read the words three times, as if by looking at them too much they will lose their power.
My beautiful sister,
How are you? After you left Urumqi we couldn’t contact you, but when we got your letter we were so pleased. I have so many words for you… maybe after we reunite we will be able to say them to one another. You said you miss your children. May Allah give you patience. Mother, me, and the relatives all miss you very much. We have so many hopes for you. Please be strong and don’t worry about the children.

mardi 12 février 2019

Reddit Users Rally Against Chinese Censorship After $300 Million Funding Round

By TARA LAW 

As news that Chinese company Tencent will invest $150 million in Reddit ricocheted across the popular aggregation website, Redditors expressed fears about censorship — and shared a lot of Winnie the Pooh and Tiananmen Square pictures.
The deal with Tencent, a holding company which specializes in technology, is reportedly part of Reddit’s plan to raise $300 million to support the company’s operations, according to a report released Tuesday by TechCrunch
Reddit, which boasts 330 million active users and bills itself as the “Front Page of the Internet,” is inaccessible in China.
Reddit confirmed the deal Monday morning, saying that it raised $300 million in a funding round led by Tencent and joined by several of the site’s existing investors. 
The deal gives Reddit a market valuation of $3 billion. 
The company did not offer further comment about the funding round.
Most of the backlash has been in the form of a number of posts to one of the site’s most popular groups, r/pics, which has over 20 million subscribers. 
Redditors have written that they feared the site, which is famously a bastion of free speech (with some exceptions) and the home of many niche communities, could end up facing censorship as is seen in China. 
There, the government blocks references to the bloody 1989 massacre in the Beijing square, as well as images that are more subtly subversive, such as the iconic and lovable Disney bear.
Since the deal was first reported five days ago, numerous Reddit users posted threads and memes criticizing the investment, arguing that it would cause Reddit to clamp down on freedom of expression outside of China. 
One post, which included the iconic image of a single man stopping a tank in Tiananmen Square, was by far the most popular post of the week and “up-voted” more than 200,000 times.
Some Reddit users posted Winnie the Pooh as an example of how arbitrary Chinese censors could be.
Winnie the Pooh has been an outlaw in China since 2017. 
The Chinese government appeared to tire of Chinese social media sharing an image of the cartoon bear walking with Tigger compared to a photo of Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama.
“Reddit is now funded by Chinese investors, so let’s remember that Xi Jinping is so insecure in a meme that he banned Winnie the Pooh nationwide,” wrote Redditor kproxurworld, from r/pics
//embed.redditmedia.com/widgets/platform.js
Others also posted the iconic image of a man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square.
“Given that Reddit just took a $150 million investment from a Chinese censorship powerhouse, I thought it would be nice to post this picture of ‘Tank Man’ at Tienanmen [sic] Square before our new glorious overlords decide we cannot post it anymore,” wrote user FreeSpeechWarrior, from r/pics
//embed.redditmedia.com/widgets/platform.js
However, other users pointed out that Reddit is huge, and a $150 million purchase is not a controlling share in the company, which was valued at $2.7 billion at the time of the sale, according to Tech Crunch.
“A lot of people seem to think it’s a majority buy out for some reason,” wrote user Lunariel.
China has previously been very willing to censor western companies for referencing Winnie the Pooh. 
Last year, the country blocked HBO’s website after a segment of an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver mocked China’s ban on Winnie the Pooh and censorship in the country overall.
Chinese censors’ aversion to Winnie has also been blamed for the embargo of the live-action Winnie the Pooh film Christopher Robin last summer, although it might have been just a regular victim of China’s cap on foreign films. 
China only allows in about 40 foreign films annually.

lundi 6 août 2018

Tech Quisling

Google Is in Talks With Tencent and Inspur for China Cloud
Bloomberg News




Google’s plans for China are even more ambitious than previously understood.
The internet giant is in talks with Tencent Holdings Ltd., Inspur Group and other Chinese companies to offer its cloud services in the world’s second-largest economy, according to people familiar with the discussions. 
The discussions began in early 2018 and Google narrowed partnership candidates to three firms in late March, according to one of the people. 
Trade tensions between China and the U.S. now loom over the effort, making it unclear whether the plans will proceed, this person said.
The disclosure comes just days after the revelation that Google is developing a version of its search engine for China that would block information the Beijing government considers sensitive. 
If implemented, the move would mark a dramatic reversal by the Alphabet unit, which exited the mainland in 2010 after refusing to comply with its censorship practices. 
The prospect of one of the most powerful American corporations bending to China’s will drew immediate condemnation in Washington.
“It is a coup for the Chinese government and Communist Party to force Google -- the biggest search engine in the world -- to comply with their onerous censorship requirements, and sets a worrying precedent for other companies seeking to do business in China without compromising their core values,” six U.S. lawmakers, including Republican Senator Marco Rubio, wrote in a letter to Google’s Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai.
The goal of the cloud initiative is to run Google internet-based services via the domestic data centers and servers of Chinese providers, similar to the way other U.S. cloud companies access that market. In most of the rest of the world, Google Cloud rents computing power and storage over the internet, and sells a collection of workplace productivity apps called G Suite that are run on its own data centers. 
China requires digital information to be stored in the country and Google has no data centers in the mainland, so it needs partnerships with local players.
Google Cloud chief Diane Greene said last week that she wants the business to "be a global cloud," but declined to comment specifically about China. 
Still, the company is seeking a Shanghai-based business development manager for its cloud business. The job posting lists "experience in, and knowledge of, the Chinese market" as a preferred qualification.
A Google Cloud spokesman declined to comment. 
Inspur and Jane Yip, a Tencent spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday.
A tie-up with large Chinese tech firms, like Tencent and Inspur, a major cloud and server provider, would also give Google powerful allies as it attempts a broader return to mainland China, where it pulled its search engine in 2010 over censorship concerns.
After years of slowly rebuilding a presence in China, Google has pressed the accelerator recently. 
It’s building a cloud data center region in Hong Kong this year and opened an artificial intelligence research center in Beijing in January. 
Along with other Alphabet Inc. units, it has begun investing more in Chinese companies. 
Plans for the censored search app in China a furious debate about whether Google is putting profit over its mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally available.”
A cloud partnership for Google in China would help the company compete more with larger rivals Amazon.com Inc. and Microsoft Corp. 
In late 2017, Amazon agreed to sell its Chinese servers and some other cloud assets to local partner Beijing Sinnet Technology Co. 
The move complied with laws introduced that year mandating the storage of data within the country and bolstering government control over the movement of information. 
The move mirrored a similar set-up between Microsoft and its local partner 21Vianet Group Inc.
With Tencent, Google would have an even more high-profile ally -- but would also go up against local competitors including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., which operates a major cloud business in China.
China is the second-largest cloud market, but local companies dominate, making it difficult for outsiders like Google, according to Synergy Research Group. 
"You can never say never, but that is an incredibly tough proposition," Synergy analyst John Dinsdale said. 
A June report from Synergy ranked Google fourth in the Asian cloud market, behind Amazon, Alibaba and Microsoft.
In January, Google struck a patent-sharing deal with Tencent. 
The agreement came with an understanding that the two companies would team up on developing future technologies.
Tencent operates its own cloud service and is building an ecosystem of partners that includes Cisco Systems Inc., Nvidia Corp. and Deloitte, according to Tencent’s website. 
It already offers a cloud service called the Tencent Kubernetes Engine that’s based on a popular Google technology by the same name. 
Google could host services, such as Gmail, Drive and Docs, on Tencent’s data centers, and the Chinese company may suggest existing cloud customers try Google offerings.
Tencent founder Pony Ma is a representative of China’s National People’s Congress, and Inspur, formerly the state-owned Shandong Electronics Devices Plant, could provide political cover for Google as it seeks to gain approval from authorities to operate more of its largest businesses in country.
Google has touted the security and AI strengths of its cloud division. 
Tensorflow, a coding library for AI applications created by Google, is growing in popularity with researchers and software developers in China. 
While the feature is compatible with other cloud services, it’s designed to work most efficiently with Google’s cloud.

vendredi 16 mars 2018

The battle for digital supremacy

America’s technological hegemony is under threat from China
The Economist

“DESIGNED by Apple in California. Assembled in China”.
For the past decade the words embossed on the back of iPhones have served as shorthand for the technological bargain between the world’s two biggest economies: America supplies the brains and China the brawn.
Not any more.
China’s world-class tech giants, Alibaba and Tencent, have market values of around $500bn, rivalling Facebook’s.
China has the largest online-payments market.
Its equipment is being exported across the world.
It has the fastest supercomputer.
It is building the world’s most lavish quantum-computing research centre.
Its forthcoming satellite-navigation system will compete with America’s GPS by 2020.
America is rattled.
An investigation is under way that is expected to conclude that China’s theft of intellectual property has cost American companies around $1trn; stinging tariffs may follow.
Earlier this year Congress introduced a bill to stop the government doing business with two Chinese telecoms firms, Huawei and ZTE.
Eric Schmidt, the former chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent, has warned that China will overtake America in artificial intelligence (AI) by 2025.
This week President Donald Trump abruptly blocked a $142bn hostile takeover of Qualcomm, an American chipmaker, by Broadcom, a Singapore-domiciled rival, citing national-security fears over Chinese leadership in 5G, a new wireless technology.
As so often, Mr Trump has identified a genuine challenge, but is bungling the response.
China’s technological rise requires a strategic answer, not a knee-jerk one.

The motherboard of all wars
To understand what America’s strategy should be, first define the problem.
It is entirely natural for a continent-sized, rapidly growing economy with a culture of scientific inquiry to enjoy a technological renaissance.
Already, China has one of the biggest clusters of AI scientists.
It has over 800m internet users, more than any other country, which means more data on which to hone its new AI.
The technological advances this brings will benefit countless people, Americans among them.
For the United States to seek to keep China down merely to preserve its place in the pecking order by, say, further balkanising the internet, is a recipe for a poorer, discordant world.
Yet it is one thing for a country to dominate televisions and toys, another the core information technologies.
They are the basis for the manufacture, networking and destructive power of advanced weapons systems. 
More generally, they are often subject to extreme network effects, in which one winner establishes an unassailable position in each market.
This means that a country may be squeezed out of vital technologies by foreign rivals pumped up by state support. 
In the case of China, those rivals answer to an oppressive authoritarian regime that increasingly holds itself up as an alternative to liberal democracy—particularly in its part of Asia.
China insists that it wants a win-win world.
America has no choice but to see Chinese technology as a means to an unwelcome end.
The question is how to respond.
The most important part of the answer is to remember the reasons for America’s success in the 1950s and 1960s.
Government programmes, intended to surpass the Soviet Union in space and weapons systems, galvanised investment in education, research and engineering across a broad range of technologies. 
This ultimately gave rise to Silicon Valley, where it was infused by a spirit of free inquiry, vigorous competition and a healthy capitalist incentive to make money.
It was supercharged by an immigration system that welcomed promising minds from every corner of the planet.
Sixty years after the Sputnik moment, America needs the same combination of public investment and private enterprise in pursuit of a national project.
The other part of the answer is to update national-security safeguards for the realities of China’s potential digital threats.
The remit of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), a multi-agency body charged with screening deals that affect national security, should be expanded so that minority investments in AI, say, can be scrutinised as well as outright acquisitions.
Mr Trump’s approach is defined only by what he can do to stifle China, not by what he can do to improve America’s prospects.
His record on that score is abysmal.
America’s federal-government spending on R&D was 0.6% of GDP in 2015, a third of what it was in 1964. 
Yet the president’s budget proposal for 2019 includes a 42.3% cut in non-defence discretionary spending by 2028, which is where funding for scientific research sits.
He has made it harder for skilled immigrants to get visas to enter America.
He and some of his party treat scientific evidence with contempt.
America is right to worry about Chinese tech.
But for America to turn its back on the things that made it great is no answer.

mardi 21 novembre 2017

Orwell's 2017: How China made Victoria's Secret a pawn in its ruthless global game

The lingerie brand’s star model Gigi Hadid got into trouble over a gaffe that a more seasoned business traveller to China might have anticipated. So what hope for future forays into this repressive state?
By Paul Mason

Models celebrate at the end of the 2017 Victoria’s Secret fashion show in Shanghai, China. 

Gigi Hadid


As a movie plot, it would work better for Johnny English than James Bond: the lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret saw its launch in China mired in controversy when the People’s Republic refused to issue visas to invited celebrities and journalists. 
Katy Perry was barred for supporting the independence of Taiwan, while model Gigi Hadid transgressed by squinting in a way some Chinese people thought was racist, while posing with a fortune cookie that looked like Buddha. 
Add in China’s standard unpredictability when it comes to issuing press visas and you have loss of face all around.
Victoria’s Secret staff emails are being watched
To which seasoned business travellers to China might respond: why do you think we’ve been carrying burner phones and disposable laptops there for years?
This is serious business. 
Demand for high-end women’s underwear is surging in China, as real wages rise and women’s social attitudes change. 
For reference, the combined efforts of all the queues of sheepish men outside Britain’s knicker shops this Christmas will drive the UK total to just $2bn. 
But the average Chinese retail outlet still prefers functionality over seductiveness – with shop window displays that would make the ladies underwear section at Marks & Spencer look risque. 
Into this gap have surged numerous online-only Chinese underwear brands, selling designer garments at less than half price of the equivalent VS product. 
But their presence in the malls, where the young salaried women shop is still minimal. 
So battle is commenced – with the Chinese brands engaged in a price war against each other, while being relentlessly boosted by the state-owned media against the foreign competition. 
The ultimate prize is significant: whoever wins brand supremacy, once China’s 200 million young adult women are prepared to buy bras at $90 (£68) a time, will be raking in large profits.
Under Xi Jinping, everything is political. 
Hadid was hounded across Chinese social media for having “mocked Asian people”, according to the newspaper Jing Daily, which added that the company’s “insufficient response” – ie refusal to sack her – was “a slight to the national pride of Chinese millennials”. 
She has since apologised for her actions, saying “ I have the utmost respect and love for the people of China.”
Xi, whose “thoughts” were enshrined in the party constitution in October, has effectively turned the brittle nationalism of Chinese cyberspace into government policy. 
China is building a new physical infrastructure across Central Asia and into Europe, buying up assets as far as Greece and the Balkans and building up its military to match the US’s presence in the region. 
Xi has cracked down on all potential opponents, issuing a series of warnings to anybody who might be thinking of opposing him. 
And he has ordered the party cadres to learn actual Marxism – not the neoliberal management theories people thought were Marxism under his predecessors.
The impossibility of knowing how this will play out is summed up in the Chinese bureaucracy’s habitual use of the word “while” – often inserted between two entirely opposed objectives. 
For example, Xi will “lower Chinese barriers for foreign investors, while strengthening domestic innovative capabilities in digital, engineering, genetic, aerospace, cyberspace, and smart technologies”. 
How many Chinese barriers should foreign businesses expect to encounter if they want to invest in such capabilities? 
They are left guessing, as are the organisers of Victoria’s Secret who could not even get a permit to film on the street outside the venue where their fashion show was to be staged.
The game China has played with globalisation up to now has been logical and, if we consider how brutally its own markets were torn open in the 19th century, karmic. 
It has protected its own industries and consumer sector behind a string of unofficial barriers, and with a slew of soft loans and politicised investments that a regular capitalist government could never get away with.
Above all, it used the Great Firewall, which western companies initially accepted as part of the political setup, as a protective economic barrier behind which it could create global-scale tech and internet companies. 
But China’s intended next steps in shaping its domestic market will take this principle a whole lot further.
Sesame Credit, a credit-scoring agency setup by Alibaba and Tencent, is designed to make Orwellian self-surveillance a reality. 
As well as creditworthiness, it measures political loyalty – based on user data gathered by China’s two biggest internet companies. 
People with low scores won’t get job offers, loans or high-speed internet; people who network with people with low scores will also get downgraded. 
The project, which is awaiting regulatory approval, has been decried as a mass surveillance tool
But it is nothing compared to what China is planning with artificial intelligence
Last month, the Chinese state issued a strategy designed to achieve global leadership in AI by 2030. As part of the plan, the private sector is ordered routinely to share its user data with the state. 
This puts China in the unique position among major powers of having no formal barriers to state exploitation of private commercial data. 
If it succeeds, China will create a consumer market whose customer data is completely interpenetrated with state surveillance mechanisms, and a population whose behaviour can be predicted right down to their choice of underwear.
In these circumstances it is right to ask: what is left of the idea of a global marketplace? 
The Shanghai branch of Victoria’s Secret will look like any other branch in the world – but it will be selling into a marketplace whose dynamics it cannot properly see, in which its customer data is not protected from the state, and where every purchase, every search inside its online store is recorded, as of right, by the government – as with any business operating in China.
Ten years ago, it was only corporations such as Google who had to decide whether they could ethically continue operating in markets distorted by state surveillance. 
Today that dilemma is beginning to confront the most basic, physical consumer brands trying to operate in China – and, as mass surveillance technology is deployed, it will get worse.
On the internet, there is already Balkanisation; there is the Chinese tech market and the rest of the world. 
Soon, right down to issues such as choice of styles or colours in fashion, global companies will be selling into two kinds of market. 
In one, consumers really do exercise choice, and consumer data is for the use of the seller only; in another, China, every micro-level consumer choice is scanned by the mass surveillance programmes in case it signals disloyalty.
Victoria’s Secret clearly blundered into an issue it could not anticipate, but the experience should prompt all businesses operating in China to ask the question: with every sale I make, am I now providing a repressive state with the means to keep my customers under surveillance?

mercredi 27 septembre 2017

Chinese bid for mapping company falls at US hurdle

Chinese seeking stake in Europe-based Here told to ‘apply directly’ to Trump 
By Yuan Yang in Beijing

Chinese investors seeking to buy a stake in a European mapping company were told to “apply directly” to the US president after their €241m offer failed to win regulatory approval, according to one of the bidders.
Beijing-based NavInfo, a mapping provider for tech giant Tencent, together with Tencent and Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC agreed last year to buy a 10 per cent stake in Amsterdam-headquartered Here to provide high-resolution maps of China for autonomous cars.
The mapping technology company is owned by German carmakers Audi, BMW and Daimler, and US chipmaker Intel.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the US weighed in on the deal, which received the green light from German regulators in January, due to Here’s assets in Chicago.
Cfius made NavInfo and its fellow investors go through multiple hoops, but did not ultimately approve the deal.
“[Cfius] didn’t stop us from reapplying again, and actually recommended we apply directly to US President Donald Trump,” said NavInfo.
“We think there are two main reasons: the whole atmosphere after the election has changed at Cfius, and we hear there are not enough employees,” the company added, suggesting the new and smaller team at Cfius was more likely to withhold approval. 
The Here decision comes at a time when China-US relations have been strained by Mr Trump’s harsh rhetoric against Chinese trade, as well as foreign policy disagreements over North Korea.
Mr Trump earlier this month blocked a $1.3bn plan by Canyon Bridge, a China-backed private equity group, to acquire Lattice Semiconductor.
Financial holdings company China Oceanwide is in the midst of re-filing an application to Cfius to acquire Virginia-based insurer Genworth Financial for $2.7bn.
As Beijing has moved to rein in an ambitious spate of offshore dealmaking by private groups, Chinese outbound investment by government-backed groups soared in the first half of the year to $28.7bn, despite scrutiny overseas over national security concerns.
“For the past six months [Cfius] has continuously asked us to change our application, but even the emails they gave us were very vague, and just mentioned ‘national security reasons’,” NavInfo said on Wednesday.
NavInfo said Cfius had told the consortium to refile its application, which it did, giving up investor rights such as shareholder votes, but the group still did not receive approval and does not understand why.
The consortium decided to drop the deal rather than apply directly to the US president, NavInfo said. The company added that although the decision changes its plans for shareholding, it will not affect its mapping projects with Here, with which it has a joint venture in China.
NavInfo said it will cancel the loan it had arranged with BNP Paribas to finance its part of the acquisition.
Tencent and GIC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

lundi 17 juillet 2017

Rogue Nation

Liu Xiaobo’s Death Pushes China’s Censors Into Overdrive
By AMY QIN

A vigil for the Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo in Hong Kong on Saturday. China’s censors blocked images of Mr. Liu and of people commemorating him. 

BEIJING — It came as little surprise when, after the death of the dissident Liu Xiaobo last week, China’s vast army of censors kicked into overdrive as they scrubbed away the outpouring of grief on social media that followed.
The accounts of censorship have been mostly anecdotal. 
But systematic research from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs shows that there was a “significant shift” in censorship techniques in the days after Mr. Liu’s death, particularly on WeChat, the popular messaging app from Tencent.
On WeChat, which has more than 768 million daily active users, the number of keyword combinations that were blocked greatly increased, according to the report that the Citizen Lab published on Sunday
Additions to the blacklist included general references to his death like “Xiaobo + died” in Chinese and in English, and even just his name “Liu Xiaobo,” effectively censoring any messages that mentioned him.
The Citizen Lab said it was also the first time that images were automatically filtered in private one-on-one chats on WeChat. 
Blocked images included photographs of Liu Xiaobo and of people commemorating him.
One of the distinguishing features of WeChat is that it does not notify users when their messages are blocked. 
The service also makes a distinction between accounts registered to phone numbers from mainland China and phone numbers from elsewhere.
In one experiment, researchers at the Citizen Lab found that a photo of Liu Xiaobo posted to an international user’s WeChat social media feed was visible to other users abroad but was hidden from users with Chinese accounts.
The heightened — yet uneven — censorship in recent days has elicited frustration and confusion among Mr. Liu’s supporters.
On the day after Mr. Liu’s death, one user posted on his WeChat feed: “‘Did you see what I just sent?’ ‘No, I can’t see it.’ For the last two days, this has been the constant question and answer among friends.”
The aggressive attempt at censorship is just the latest indication of the strong grip that the Chinese government maintains on local internet companies. 
In addition to automatically filtering certain keywords and images, internet companies like Baidu, Sina and Tencent also employ human censors who retroactively comb through posts and delete what they deem as sensitive content, often based on government directives.
Failure to block such content can result in fines for companies or worse, revocation of their operational licenses. 
Censors have been on especially high alert this year in light of the Communist Party’s 19th National Party Congress in the fall.
Over the years, the constant cat-and-mouse game between Chinese censors and internet users has led to the rise of a robust internet culture in which censorship is normalized and satire and veiled references are par for the course.
So even as censors stepped up scrutiny in recent days, many savvy Chinese internet users found ways to evade those efforts. 
In tributes to Mr. Liu, users referred to him as “Brother Liu” or even “XXX.” 
They posted passages from his poems and abstract illustrations of Mr. Liu and his wife, Liu Xia.
Over the weekend, however, the tributes gave way to scathing critiques as friends and supporters of Mr. Liu reacted angrily to the news of Mr. Liu’s cremation and sea burial under strict government oversight.
One user took to his WeChat feed on Sunday to express disgust with the use of Mr. Liu’s corpse in what some called a blatant propaganda exercise. 
“Swift cremation, swift sea burial,” he wrote. 
“Scared of the living, scared of the dead, and even more scared of the dead who are immortal.”

vendredi 14 avril 2017

Rogue Nation, Rogue App

China’s WeChat Is a Censorship Juggernaut
By Scott Cendrowski

Earlier this month the Chinese social media giant Tencent passed Wells Fargo as the world's tenth most valuable publicly traded company.
It would never have grown to that size were it not for the company's close relationship with China's government. 
The government requires a high level of cooperation from technology companies, which is one reason Google decided to leave the market seven years ago and why overseas social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Line, Telegram, among others, remain blocked in China.
When it comes to censoring topics the government wants, Tencent's cooperation has gone to impressive new lengths, according to a new report released yesterday by The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto.
The report details the ways Tencent censors keywords without users ever knowing; deletes images appearing on WeChat news feeds, which was previously undiscovered; and doesn't subject overseas users to the same onerous censorship as Chinese users.
Similar censorship exists on Sina Weibo, China's Twitter.
But WeChat, with 889 million monthly average users and a Facebook-like closed infrastructure that creates a sense of privacy, is becoming the more important platform for China's one-party government to monitor and shape.
Researchers tested censorship using terms related to the imprisonment of 250 human rights lawyers and workers starting in the summer of 2015. 
The episode earned the moniker "709 crackdown" for the first disappearances of two lawyers on July 9th, 2015. 
The topic has since gained attention inside and outside the country as the biggest crackdown on human rights workers since just after the Tiananmen Square massacre. 
In January, one lawyer's description of his treatment was made public. 
I’m going to torture you until you go insane,” human rights lawyer Xie Yang said one of his interrogators told him.
Citizen Lab found 41 keyword combinations related to the "709 crackdown" were censored on WeChat without users knowing. 
If they sent messages to friends containing the phrases, or posted them to their Moments "news feed," the messages appeared on their end but couldn't been seen by anyone else.
Previous research has found WeChat censors terms, such as those relating to the Hong Kong protests in 2014. 
A Tencent spokeswoman didn't respond to a request for comment Friday.
New in the latest report was that images are now being censored. 
In the past, images were a way to evade censors. 
Citizen Lab found infographics and profiles of the lawyers caught up in the 709 crackdown were censored in individual messages and Moments pages. 
"Our discovery of related blocked images on WeChat confirms the existence of image filtering and reveals the high level and extent of censorship enforced on this popular chat app," the researchers wrote.
More keywords and images were censored if they were sent to group chats containing up to 500 members than one-on-one exchanges, researchers said. 
But the same keywords were not censored on accounts registered to a phone number outside China.
The research shows how easily China's censors can co-opt the social network, as well as the consequences. 
"While there is tremendous effort and numerous global petitions to help Chinese rights defenders, many of these messages fail to reach domestic audiences in China due to information control practices, including search filtering and keyword and image censorship on chat apps," researchers wrote.

lundi 16 janvier 2017

Chinese Big Brother collecting big data — and it's all for sale

China has wealth of data on what individuals are doing at a micro level, says The Citizen Lab at University of Toronto
By Saša Petricic

Cameras in Beijing: Big Brother doesn't even need to be watching with his own eyes.

Living in China, it's safe to assume pretty much everything about you is known — or easily can be known — by the government.
Where you go, who you're with, which restaurants you like, when and why you see your doctor.
Big Brother doesn't even need to be watching with his own eyes.
There is an entire network — the internet inside China's Great Firewall — designed to gather the information. 
And there's an industry of private and state-owned high-tech enterprises serving it.
"You could go so far as to make the argument that social media and digital technology are actually supporting the regime," says Ronald Deibert, the director of The Citizen Lab, a group of researchers at the University of Toronto who study how information technology affects human and personal rights around the world.

Ronald Deibert, of The Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto, says Chinese authorities 'have a wealth of data at their disposal about what individuals are doing at a micro level in ways that they never had before.' 

The lab has taken apart popular apps like WeChat, a messaging app that also does financial transactions designed specifically for the Chinese market by private software giant Tencent.
It's used by more than 800 million people here every month — virtually every Chinese person who is online.
Deibert's team found it contains various hidden means of censorship and surveillance. 
Among other things, the restrictions follow Chinese students who study abroad.
Chinese authorities "have a wealth of data at their disposal about what individuals are doing at a micro level in ways that they never had before," Deibert says.
"What the government has managed to do is download the controls to the private sector, to make it incumbent upon them to police their own networks," he says.

A cyclist in Beijing checks his smartphone. Now every picture posted, every comment made, every driving infraction could go into a central database to produce a person's 'trustworthiness' score. 

And now the data these firms collect is for sale.
An investigation by a leading Chinese newspaper, the Guangzhou Southern Metropolis Daily, found that just a little cash could buy incredible amounts of information about almost anyone.
Friend or fiancé, business competitor or enemy … no questions asked.
Using just the personal ID number of a colleague, reporters bought detailed data about hotels stayed at, flights and trains taken, border entry and exit records, real estate transactions and bank records. 
All of them with dates, times and scans of documents (for an extra fee, the seller could provide the names of who the colleague stayed with at hotels and rented apartments).
All confirmed by the colleague. 
And all for the low price of 700 yuan, or about $140 Cdn.

In a system where every citizen's information is collected and traded at every level, involving government officials and private corporations, it's hard to tell who isn't allowed to know.

Another service provided live tracking of a colleague using his mobile phone, sending pinpoint locations in real time.
This too was surprisingly accurate.
There are countless ads for services like these online, and some seem more reliable than others.
But the reporters at the Southern Metropolis Daily had no trouble getting solid, confirmed information.
Much of the data seems to come from companies like telecom providers and hotels. 
But some is likely only available from government sources, information on driving infractions and border crossings.
In all cases, it seems the data is routinely collected, sorted and cross-referenced — and almost certainly tracked by government officials.
In fact, Beijing recently unveiled an ambitious plan to assign every citizen a so-called "social credit" score. 
Modeled on the score banking institutions give for your financial reliability, this one would measure your social "trustworthiness" using data collected from every online interaction.

Data free-for-all

Every picture posted, every comment made, every driving infraction or incident of rowdiness would go into a central database that would spit out a single number that would determine how far you could be trusted to hold a job or travel or even get married.
That raises the question, would that massive database also be publicly available?
The approach is a far cry from what many Western governments still consider an appropriate balance between privacy and "national security," the vague catch-all phrase that China's Communist leaders use to justify crackdowns against anything that they consider politically threatening.
"I would say it's a very big issue," says The Citizen Lab's Deibert.
"It is in contrast to the data minimization philosophy – collect only what you need and keep it for only as long as you need to use it, then delete, delete, delete."
Technically, privacy is protected by the constitution and the law in China, but when the Southern Metropolis Daily contacted the police with the results of its investigation, there was no comment.
In a system where every citizen's information is collected and traded at every level — in an apparent data free-for-all that involves government officials as well as so many private corporations — it's hard to tell who isn't allowed to know.

lundi 19 décembre 2016

Inventivity With Chinese Characteristics

China invents the digital totalitarian state
The Economist

GARY SHTEYNGART’S novel of 2010, “Super Sad True Love Story”, is set in a near future when the Chinese yuan is a global currency and people all wear an “apparat” around their neck with RateMe Plus technology. 
Personal details are displayed in public on ubiquitous Credit Poles, posts on street corners with “little LED counters at eye level that registered your Credit ranking as you walked by.” 
The protagonist’s are summed up thus:
LENNY ABRAMOV. Income averaged over five-year span, $289,420 yuan-pegged… Current blood pressure: 120 over 70. O-type blood… Thirty-nine years of age, lifespan estimated at eighty-three…Ailments: high cholesterol, depression…Consumer profile: heterosexual, nonathletic, non-automotive, nonreligious… Sexual preferences: low-functioning Asian/Korean…Child abuse indicator: on… Last purchases: bound, printed, nonstreaming Media artifact” [ie, book].
The novel is a fictional dystopia about the destruction of privacy
China’s Communist Party may be on its way to inventing the real thing. 
It is planning what it calls a “social-credit system”. 
This aims to score not only the financial creditworthiness of citizens, as happens everywhere, but also their social and political behaviour. 
It is not yet clear how extensive the system will be, nor whether it will work, nor how far it will withstand the criticism ranged against it in the state-controlled media. 
But an outline is complete and some of the building blocks are in place. 
The early signs are that China is starting on the most ambitious experiment in digital social control in the world.
A pilot scheme in Suining county, in Jiangsu province north of Shanghai, gives clues about what such a system might mean in practice. 
Starting in 2010, the local government awarded people points for good behaviour (such as winning a national honour of some kind) and deducted points for everything from minor traffic offences to “illegally petitioning higher authorities for help”. 
Those who scored highest were eligible for rewards such as fast-track promotion at work or jumping the queue for public housing.
The project was a failure. 
The data on which it was based were patchy. 
Amid a public backlash, a report in China Youth Daily, a state-owned newspaper, criticised the system. 
It said “political” data (such as petitions) should not have been included, declaring that “people should have rated government employees and instead the government has [rated] the people.” Another state-run newspaper, Beijing Times, even compared the scheme with the “good citizen” certificates issued by Japan during its wartime occupation of China.
But the party and government seem undaunted, issuing outline plans for the social-credit system in 2014 and more detailed guidelines this year. 
About 30 local governments are collecting data that would support it. 
The plan appears hugely ambitious, aiming explicitly to influence the behaviour of a whole society. By 2020, Chinese officials say, it will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”
The project is a response to the party’s biggest problems: the collapse of confidence in public institutions, and the need to keep track of the changing views and interests of China’s population (without letting them vote)
It seeks to collect information on the "honesty" of ordinary citizens, public officials and companies alike.

A question of trust
Despite years of economic growth, popular discontent at widespread corruption has grown stronger. A series of scandals about everything from shoddy housing to out-of-date vaccines has led to public cynicism about companies and the government’s ability to enforce rules. 
Social-credit scoring aims to change that by cracking down on the corrupt officials and companies that plague Chinese life. 
And it aims to keep a closer track on public opinion. 
In a society with few outlets for free expression, big data might paradoxically help make institutions more accountable.
But it could also vastly increase snooping and social control
In other countries there have been many scare stories about Big Data leading to Big Brother. 
Most have proven false. 
But China is different. 
It is a one-party state, with few checks on its power, a tradition of social control and, in Xi Jinping, a leader even more prone to authoritarianism than his immediate predecessors. 
The extent of social-credit scoring will depend on what the government intends, whether the technology works and how the party responds to public concerns.
Start with intent. 
The “planning outline” published in 2014 said the government “pays high regard to the construction of a social-credit system”—suggesting the project has the imprimatur of Xi and Li Keqiang, the prime minister. 
Social credit, it declared, “is an important component …of the social-governance system”: in other words, it is part of governing the country.
The paper did not set out how the system would work but was clear about its aims. 
They are to strengthen confidence in the government by improving its efficiency through big data; to crack down on companies that cheat and sell unsafe goods; and to “encourage keeping trust and punish breaking trust…throughout the entire society”. 
Social credit, it concluded, would be “an important basis for…building a harmonious socialist society”.

Getting to know you
Such thinking is in keeping with the party’s long record of using bureaucratic tools to restrict freedom and invade privacy in the name of public order. 
Almost everyone has a hukou (household registration) document that determines where citizens can get public services. 
Most people once had a dang’an (personal file) containing school and work reports, and salary details. 
Both controls have been relaxed, notably the dang’an. 
But both still exist.
Increasing numbers of people in government, state-owned firms and universities are required to hand over their passports “for safe keeping”. 
Holders of passports in some parts of the restless regions of Xinjiang and Tibet have also been told to hand them over to the police.
Punishments and rewards for behaviour are woven into the government’s activities. 
The one- (now two-) child policy remains the extreme example of a supposed greater good trampling over private interests. 
But it is not the only one. 
The Elder-care law of 2013 requires all adult children, on penalty of fines or jail, to visit parents over 60 “often” (the courts define what counts as often). 
A few people have been fined under the law and one official said their offences might be entered onto their dang’an, though there is no sign that this has been done.
China has “an administrative rewards system” in which hundreds of thousands of people a year receive honours and titles, such as “outstanding cadre”, “spiritually advanced individual” and “civilised village”. 
Winners get money, a higher pension, better health insurance and the right to jump the queue for public housing. 
The honours system is valued by the leadership. 
Last year, all seven members of the country’s highest decision-making body, the Standing Committee of the Politburo, attended the awards ceremony of the National Model Worker programme.
Wholesale surveillance, increasingly of the digital sort, is a central pillar of Chinese communist rule. 
A system of block-by-block surveillance called “grid management” is being set up in several parts of the country: police and volunteers keep tabs on groups of a few hundred people, supposedly to ensure the rubbish is collected and disputes resolved. 
It is part of a tradition of self-policing that stretches back to the Song dynasty in the 11th century.
Newer forms of monitoring involve the ubiquitous use of closed-circuit television cameras. 
In 2009 China had 2.7m of them; now it may have overtaken America as the country with the largest number of CCTV devices. 
According to Jack Ma, head of Alibaba, China’s largest internet firm, the company’s home town of Hangzhou has more surveillance cameras than New York, a somewhat larger city.
As internet use has grown (see chart), so have China’s comprehensive controls in cyberspace—from the Great Firewall, the system that blocks access to tens of thousands of websites (Economist.com among them); to the Golden Shield, an extensive online surveillance system; and the Great Cannon, a tool to attack hostile websites. 
China’s cyber-censors can suspend internet or social-media accounts if their users send messages containing sensitive terms such as “Tibetan independence” or “Tiananmen Square incident”.

The scale of the data-collection effort suggests that the long-term aim is to keep track of the transactions made, websites visited and messages sent by all of China’s 700m internet users. 
That would be enormously ambitious but probably not impossible. 
According to leaked documents, America’s National Security Agency can collect 42bn internet records a month and 5bn mobile-phone location records a day.
To make such surveillance work, the government has to match the owners of devices with the digital footprints they leave. 
So laws passed in 2012 and 2016 require internet firms to keep their customers’ real names and other personal information. 
But there are lots of fake registrations. 
And it is unclear how censors plan to tackle virtual private networks, which mask a user’s IP address.

Who’s naughty and nice

The emerging social-credit system builds on this history of monitoring and control of people’s private lives. 
Lists are central to the project: you need lists of identities to order the data you gather. 
And lists are a Chinese speciality. 
China’s tourist authority keeps a no-fly list for ill-mannered travellers, who can be banned from going abroad for up to ten years. 
The Cyberspace administration keeps a “white list” of favoured media firms that may sell their articles to other outlets. 
And so on.
The list at the heart of the social-credit system is called the “judgment defaulter’s list”, composed of those who have defied a court order. 
If two people or companies have a contract dispute, or if couples are fighting over a divorce or child support, the parties can go to a civil court for judgment. 
If the losing party then defaults on payment, he, she or it is put on the list. 
Names of offenders are displayed on an electronic crawl outside court houses. 
According to the supreme court, there were 3.1m defaulters on the list at the end of 2015.
All countries have problems enforcing civil judgments in financial cases, so the list may not look unusual. 
But it is. 
It is exceptionally long, and made available to dozens of government departments and party organisations, all of which can apply their own sanctions to defaulters. 
People on the list can be prevented from buying aeroplane, bullet-train or first- or business-class rail tickets; selling, buying or building a house; or enrolling their children in expensive fee-paying schools. 
There are restrictions on offenders joining or being promoted in the party and army, and on receiving honours and titles. 
If the defaulter is a company, it may not issue shares or bonds, accept foreign investment or work on government projects. 
By August 2016 defaulters had been stopped from buying airline tickets about 5m times. 
This goes far beyond normal legal enforcements.

Sins with Chinese characteristics
From blacklisting debt-defaulters the system could be expanded a bit, say, to keep track of companies that sell poisoned milk or build shoddy houses. 
Yet guidelines issued in May and September suggest it could go much further. 
They call the defaulters list “an important component of social-credit information”, implying that it is part of a larger system, and that financial offences are only one category of wrongdoing. 
Other sorts of “untrustworthy behaviour” meriting attention include: “conduct that seriously undermines…the normal social order…seriously undermines the order of cyberspace transmissions”, as well as “assembling to disrupt social order [and] endangering national defence interests”. 
Such broad categories imply the system could be used to rate and punish dissent, expressions of opinion and perceived threats to security.
Although not spelled out clearly, the guidelines could, on the face of it, allow the state to integrate its many databases: everyone’s hukou and dang’an, information from electronic surveillance, the tourist blacklist, the national model-worker programme and more. 
Even regulations on video games published in December say that firms and gamers that violate the rules could be blacklisted and inscribed in the social-credit database. 
At worst, the social-credit project could become a 360-degree digital-surveillance panopticon.
That may sound like scaremongering. 
After all, Google, Facebook, data-brokers and marketing companies in Western countries—even American presidential-election campaigns—all hold vast quantities of personal information without causing serious harm to civil liberties, at least not so far.
But China treats personal information differently from the West. 
In democracies, laws limit what companies may do with it and the extent to which governments can get their hands on it. 
Such protections are imperfect everywhere. 
But in China they do not exist. 
The national-security law and the new cyber-security law give the government unrestricted access to all personal data
Civil-liberty advocates who might protest are increasingly in jail. 
And companies that hold data, such as Alibaba, Baidu (China’s largest search engine) and Tencent (which runs a popular social-messaging app) routinely obey government demands for data.
Big-data systems in democracies are not designed for social control. China’s explicitly would be. 
And because its leaders consider the interest of the party and society to be the same, instruments of social control are used for political purposes. 
Earlier this year, for instance, the party asked China Electronics Technology Group, one of the country’s largest defence contractors, to develop software to predict terrorist risks on the basis of people’s job records, financial background, consumption habits, hobbies and data from surveillance cameras. 
Sifting data to seek terrorists can easily morph into looking for dissidents. 
It is telling that Western intelligence agencies have tried to use data-mining schemes to identify individual terrorists, but failed because of an excess of “false positives”.
So can a vast social-credit system work? 
The Chinese face two big technical hurdles: the quality of the data and the sensitivity of the instruments to analyse it. 
Big-data projects everywhere—such as the attempt by Britain’s National Health Service to create a nationwide medical database—have stumbled over the problem of how to prevent incorrect information from fouling the system (this undermined the Suining experiment, too). 
Problems of bad data would be even more onerous in a country of 1.3bn people. 
Vast treasuries of data would also give big incentives for cyber-criminals to steal or change information.

How to analyse the data would be equally problematic. 
The feature of the social-credit system that has attracted the most attention and alarm is the notion of ascribing “credit scores” (points) to social and political activity. 
Here, the model seems to be America’s marketing industry. 
Companies work out credit scores that predict people’s patterns of consumption based on things such as job security, health risks and youth delinquency. 
But errors abound
The World Privacy Forum, a non-profit organisation, says credit scores are based on hundreds of data points with no standards of accuracy, transparency or completeness. 
As the report concluded, “error rates and false readings become a big issue.” 
Garbage in, garbage out.

What could go wrong?
The government is well aware of these difficulties. 
It has allowed an unusual amount of discussion on them in state-run media, suggesting it may be testing the waters before deciding how far to plunge in. 
A recent high-level “social-credit summit” in Shanghai, for example, talked about how scores can be checked, and mistakes rectified; many argued that legal protections needed to be improved. 
Zhang Zheng, director of the China Credit Research Centre at Peking University, said multiple problems remain unsolved, and that the administration needed to be reined in.
A commentary in Beijing Times complained about plans to punish people who do not pay their electricity bills by limiting foreign travel and bank borrowing. 
“I have never opposed the establishment and improvement of a credit-information system,” wrote the author, Yang Gengshen
“I am only against using credit to expand the power of the strong and further compress the space for civil rights.”
Much about the social-credit system remains unclear. 
The government has not yet determined whether it wants the system mainly for cracking down on crooks or to go the full Big Brother. 
It is uncertain about how much of the information it holds should be incorporated into the system. The surveillance technology is largely untested at the vast scale of China. 
And the fragmentation of China’s intelligence agencies would have to be overcome.
But the government is creating the capacity for a long-tentacled regime of social control. 
Many of the elements are ready: the databases; the digital surveillance; the system of reward and punishment; and the we-know-best paternalism. 
What remains is to join the pieces together. 
If and when that is done, China would have the world’s first digital totalitarian state. 
As another character in “Super Sad True Love Story” writes to a friend: “This is what happens when there’s only one party and we live in a police state.”