3 ms·

A few citations would be nice, as would some explanation of how the conduct you allege in any way resembles the behavior of the Chinese government. I am aware o

A few citations would be nice, as would some explanation of how the conduct you allege in any way resembles the behavior of the Chinese government. I am aware of zero cases where the U.S. government has taken down a site just because it concluded that the site contained propaganda that the government did not want the U.S. populous to read. I seriously doubt such cases exist. The fact that I can pull up Wikileaks or RT without trouble tends to suggest that the U.S. government certainly does not do this regularly -- I think these sites certainly would be blocked under the Chinese approach, much as China has repeatedly blocked the New York Times, or specific New York Times stories. (https://www.google.com/search?q=china%20block%20new%20york%20times https://www.google.com/search?q=china%20block%20new%20york%2...) I don't doubt that it has the capability, and that the U.S. would use it if there were a compelling reason to do so (your assertion about ISIS forums, for example, strikes me as an attempt to suppress organization and recruitment by an active enemy of the United States in wartime [insert largely irrelevant debate about whether this is really a war, here]), but I seriously doubt there is any credible evidence that the U.S. government uses these tools in a way comparable to the Chinese government. We have a lot of problems here in the U.S., but I think you'd be hard pressed to make a credible case that pervasive Internet censorship, equivalent, or even remotely similar to what is done by the Chinese government, is one of them.

themeekforgotpw 11y ago
The ISIS example is far more complicated. It's part of information warfare. ISIS is of course partially supported by the US government for the purposes of destabilizing the Assad regime. But we don't want it in Iraq - just Syria - and its message as proved to move it farther than we want it to. Much of the information warfare has to do with controlling the movement - stopping it from spreading where we don't want it to and letting or encouraging it to spread in Syria. The State Department's "War of Ideas" and Congress's "Jihad 2.0" are higher level concepts that round down to the use of these capabilities to direct movements. Of course nothing can get done without some sort of conventional capability as well. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of it. The allegations, I hope, and there's plenty of both evidence and anecdotes and law that supports it, will pique your interest. I don't think its right to compare to China. I do think it's important to note that both need to fight against one another's propaganda. Again, if you drop the case that it's like the Chinese, and just ask whether it is done (especially overseas - it is done in huge amounts overseas) then yeah there is pervasive Internet censorship and propaganda. I encourage you to look up "strategic communication": http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf Here's part of Jihad 2.0: http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf The US works with media executives to develop foreign aimed propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 (And if you hadn't caught it that's what the SONY hacks were all about). I've also read quite a bit of scholarship on the Chinese program and it doesn't look so very different from the US side (from a technical perspective): http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf There are certain things that get thwarted. Facebook's 'anti-spam' feature blocked the organization of this past year's MayDay protests. Whoops.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Perhaps we're not really disagreeing about anything. I know, and have already agreed, that the U.S. can and does engage in so-called "strategic communications" overseas. This surely encompasses influencing the messages that reach targeted populations overseas in furtherance of certain strategic aims. I also agree that the U.S. might try to take down certain sites in particularly extreme cases (such as the U.S.'s targeting of ISIS forums that you allege). What I strongly object to, however, is the equivalence you are suggesting between U.S. "strategic communications" and China's pervasive Internet censorship, both as a matter of raw degree, and also taking into account the different circumstances in which the two countries exercise these capabilities. When asking whether there is some sort of moral equivalence to be drawn between the Chinese and U.S. programs, the question to ask is when do the countries exercise their capabilities, not whether they have these technical capabilities, or whether they are sometimes used. And I still don't see that you've provided any credible evidence that the two are comparable in these terms. (Though maybe we agree here too -- you say "I don't think its right to compare to China" but if this is true, I really don't know why your comments are relevant commentary on this article.) I certainly don't disagree that the U.S. and Chinese programs are likely similar "from a technical perspective," but I don't think the technical perspective is the perspective that should interest people here.
  - themeekforgotpw 11y ago
    The US absolutely does censor group organization efforts in the US and political speech as well. What the US does is quite different than China and it faces quite a different set of challenges than China. It's an apples and oranges comparison. We agree here. So to address why this is relevant has to do with China DDoSing content that is not a domestic product/service of China. Telegraph is not from China. China blocking Telegraph is like the US blocking stopfasttrack.ru and videos from warfighters in the Middle East. China blocking Telegraph is like the UK plans to take what they currently do and what they plan to do by law and block certain foreign tools for secure communication. The US, too, blocks (and sabotages) secure communication software - it has been defunding secure communication software with partnerships in the valley, has Comey talking to Congress about the need for software front doors, and the Snowden leaks showed us how comprehensively backdoored everything is including relationships between vendors and services with customers. The US does this with foreign developed services and it thwarts secure communication capabilities both provided by foreign governments and its own private sector intended for domestic use. That's the equivalence and the relevance.

themeekforgotpw 11y ago

The ISIS example is far more complicated. It's part of information warfare. ISIS is of course partially supported by the US government for the purposes of destabilizing the Assad regime. But we don't want it in Iraq - just Syria - and its message as proved to move it farther than we want it to. Much of the information warfare has to do with controlling the movement - stopping it from spreading where we don't want it to and letting or encouraging it to spread in Syria. The State Department's "War of Ideas" and Congress's "Jihad 2.0" are higher level concepts that round down to the use of these capabilities to direct movements. Of course nothing can get done without some sort of conventional capability as well. I'm sorry that you aren't aware of it. The allegations, I hope, and there's plenty of both evidence and anecdotes and law that supports it, will pique your interest. I don't think its right to compare to China. I do think it's important to note that both need to fight against one another's propaganda. Again, if you drop the case that it's like the Chinese, and just ask whether it is done (especially overseas - it is done in huge amounts overseas) then yeah there is pervasive Internet censorship and propaganda. I encourage you to look up "strategic communication": http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476331.pdf Here's part of Jihad 2.0: http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf http://minerva.dtic.mil/doc/samplewp-Lieberman.pdf The US works with media executives to develop foreign aimed propaganda: https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 https://wikileaks.org/sony/emails/emailid/133736 (And if you hadn't caught it that's what the SONY hacks were all about). I've also read quite a bit of scholarship on the Chinese program and it doesn't look so very different from the US side (from a technical perspective): http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf http://gking.harvard.edu/files/censored.pdf There are certain things that get thwarted. Facebook's 'anti-spam' feature blocked the organization of this past year's MayDay protests. Whoops.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Perhaps we're not really disagreeing about anything. I know, and have already agreed, that the U.S. can and does engage in so-called "strategic communications" overseas. This surely encompasses influencing the messages that reach targeted populations overseas in furtherance of certain strategic aims. I also agree that the U.S. might try to take down certain sites in particularly extreme cases (such as the U.S.'s targeting of ISIS forums that you allege). What I strongly object to, however, is the equivalence you are suggesting between U.S. "strategic communications" and China's pervasive Internet censorship, both as a matter of raw degree, and also taking into account the different circumstances in which the two countries exercise these capabilities. When asking whether there is some sort of moral equivalence to be drawn between the Chinese and U.S. programs, the question to ask is when do the countries exercise their capabilities, not whether they have these technical capabilities, or whether they are sometimes used. And I still don't see that you've provided any credible evidence that the two are comparable in these terms. (Though maybe we agree here too -- you say "I don't think its right to compare to China" but if this is true, I really don't know why your comments are relevant commentary on this article.) I certainly don't disagree that the U.S. and Chinese programs are likely similar "from a technical perspective," but I don't think the technical perspective is the perspective that should interest people here.
- themeekforgotpw 11y ago
  The US absolutely does censor group organization efforts in the US and political speech as well. What the US does is quite different than China and it faces quite a different set of challenges than China. It's an apples and oranges comparison. We agree here. So to address why this is relevant has to do with China DDoSing content that is not a domestic product/service of China. Telegraph is not from China. China blocking Telegraph is like the US blocking stopfasttrack.ru and videos from warfighters in the Middle East. China blocking Telegraph is like the UK plans to take what they currently do and what they plan to do by law and block certain foreign tools for secure communication. The US, too, blocks (and sabotages) secure communication software - it has been defunding secure communication software with partnerships in the valley, has Comey talking to Congress about the need for software front doors, and the Snowden leaks showed us how comprehensively backdoored everything is including relationships between vendors and services with customers. The US does this with foreign developed services and it thwarts secure communication capabilities both provided by foreign governments and its own private sector intended for domestic use. That's the equivalence and the relevance.