Schneier on Security

albert • December 1, 2016 2:51 PM

Blocking “…gambling and pornography…” and criticism of the State*. I can see that. This is business-as-usual for totalitarian regimes. But Falun Gong? This appears to be paranoia by certain Chinese leaders; nothing else makes sense**.

Despite being crushed like a bug by the State, people still practice it. -That- should be the lesson that the State takes away from this. To make matters worse, Li Hongzhi, the spiritual leader of the movement, is now a US citizen! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falun_Gong)

The proper reaction for China would have been to back off, -not- double down. All governments need to learn this lesson. Machismo always leads to trouble

@keiner,
As long as the MSM does its job, we’re OK for now. The problem is now, after the abject failure of the US MSM in the latest election fiasco, that citizens confidence levels may become dangerously low. The footnote cited* may be a reaction to that.

@Art,
You don’t have to sign your posts…. unless you use a Reel E Kewl handle, like ‘Colonel Hacker’, or ‘Chick N Catch A Tory’.

*lest we forget, I must point out our very own “Russian propaganda media outlets” blacklist, courtesy of the CIAs favorite Public Relations Dept., the Washington Post.

** Organ harvesting?

P.S. (If John Phillip Sousa were alive today, he’d probably want to rename his famous march.)
. .. . .. — ….

albert • December 1, 2016 6:45 PM

@Godfree Roberts, et al,

Would censorship by any other name still stink?

Wikipedia offers a rather broad definition of the term, and includes actions that probably should have separate definitions.

Let’s assume ‘censorship’ means ‘government censorship’. Countries like China practice ‘editorial’ censorship, that is, they edit the input directly; it’s not allowed to escape into the wild. Serious rule violations however, can be punished, often severely. Here in the US, we have astonishingly liberal ‘protected speech*’ laws, even compared to Europe. Again, certain speech will definitely result in uninvited guests, with badges. (In most cases, they won’t drag you away in chains to a gulag).

How, then, do citizens determine the trustworthiness of their media? That’s important, because it is a measure of the amount and quality of the censorship imposed upon it.

In China, one would have to look at what the MSM is saying, and comparing it to what is being observed. When the Government provides the metrics, it’s difficult to make an informed decision**. It may be that the State does what it says it will do, and who can argue with success?

We have alternative media, and access to other countries as well, not to mention a ‘free’ flow of ideas. It’s easier to see when observable realities don’t align with MSM lies, hence the low approval ratings.

The measure of approval ratings may then be a measure of the efficiency of a States propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe a measure of the ‘information vacuum’ may be more appropriate. I propose the unit: Jong-un, where 1000 Jong-uns is maximum possible information vacuum. The Jong-un scale can never be zero. Maybe it’s a power function.

The floor is open…

*’Speech’ here refers to any kind of public or private expression.

** Take North Korea as an extreme example. “It’s all good”, and “Don’t worry, be happy!” kinda ring hollow.

. .. . .. — ….