O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida;

Meu Twitter: https://twitter.com/PauloAlmeida53

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paulobooks

Mostrando postagens com marcador Censura chinesa. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Censura chinesa. Mostrar todas as postagens

sexta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2018

Os mandarins e o seu custo para a sociedade: um caso de auto-defesa na China - The Washington Post

E se eu decidisse atacar os mandarins do Estado brasileiro e o seu custo para a sociedade, como de fato sempre o faço? Eu seria demitido de meu cargo de servidor do mesmo Estado, como sou hoje?
Ou eu seria demitido de meu cargo de professor numa universidade privada, como de fato exerço esse segundo cargo por vontade própria?
O que dizer, por exemplo, do enorme custo para a sociedade chinesa, pelo fato de ter de cobrir as despesas de 20 MILHÕES de mandarins oficiais, os atuais funcionários do Partido, que supostamente exercem "funções produtivas na sociedade"?
Um professor universitário que ousou questionar esse custo, e o seu efeito sobre a economia, foi não apenas demitido, como também bloqueado de qualquer possibilidade de continuar questionando esse fato pelas redes de comunicação social da China comunista.
O assunto é tratado neste "Editorial board" do Washington Post.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

A professor dared tell the truth in China — and was fired


CHINA’S COMMUNIST Party is a massive superstructure that dictates the direction of the government, the media, the economy, social policy, security and more. The party demands fealty and does not tolerate competition. It is also an enormous organization in its own right, with a ubiquitous, paternalistic presence. That was on the mind of a Chinese professor, Yang Shaozheng, when he dared publish an article last year questioning the enormous weight of the party as an organization on China’s economy.
The article came after Mr. Yang’s teaching at Guizhou University was abruptly suspended Nov. 10, as well as his supervision of graduate students. He had been a professor in good standing there for 11 years, teaching game theory and microeconomics. His questions about the Communist Party were trenchant. Mr. Yang estimated that the party’s 20 million officials cost 2 trillion yuan, or about $291 billion annually, to support. In a separate, longer article, he pointed out that in two different countries, one with such a big burden and one without, the one without would do better. The country with a massive overlay of officials, he said, would eventually become “impoverished,” and he added, “As long as nothing changes, the society that has to sustain the more government officials will ultimately collapse.”
Mr. Yang’s first article was sent to the New Tang Dynasty television station, in New York City, that is affiliated with Falun Gong, a spiritual practice persecuted by the Chinese authorities. That surely got him in hot water. In both articles, he raised a discomfiting question for a party that presents itself as integral to China’s future: Why was no one talking about the economic burden of the party? The first article was titled “Can We Really Leave the Party Out of Our Economic Research?”
The professor has slowly been receiving the party’s answer. His blog was shut down. His WeChat account was closed. His classrooms were silenced. His written appeal to the university president was ignored. Then, on Aug. 15, the university expelled him. According to the website China Change, which chronicles human rights issues in China, the reasons given were his “long-running publication and spreading online of politically mistaken speech, writing a large number of politically harmful articles, and creating a deleterious influence on campus and in society.” He was also accused of “being unrepentant” and refusing to accept “educational help.”
Mr. Yang had clearly touched a third rail by raising even the slightest bit of doubt about whether the party was worth the expense. His ouster is another sign of a campaign being undertaken across academia in China to squelch freedom of expression and inquiry. These are at the heart of learning and scholarship, and China will be the loser for undermining them. According to China Change, the professor, shorn of his ability to speak out, turned to Twitter. His first tweet said: “The more I think, the more distressed I become. It’s hard to pursue the truth; it’s hard to speak the truth; and it’s hard to be a truthful person. Being able to freely express ourselves, without terror, is our dream.”


sexta-feira, 20 de junho de 2014

Brics: os parceiros estrategicos dos companheiros na censura a imprensa (China)


Chinese Government Tightens Constraints on Press Freedom



HONG KONG — China introduced new restrictions on what the government has called “critical” news articles and barred Chinese journalists from doing work outside their beats or regions, putting further restraints on reporters in one of the world’s most controlled news media environments.
Reporters in China must now seek permission from their employers before undertaking “critical reports” and are barred from setting up their own websites, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television announced in new rules Wednesday.
The state agency said in a statement on its website that the rules came after a series of cases involving misconduct by journalists, including extortion. But journalists and rights activists said the rules could have a chilling effect on reporting in China, a country already ranked 173rd out of 179 countries on the press freedom index published by Reporters Without Borders.
Yet despite the restrictions on reporters, newspapers and magazines such as Southern Weekend and Caixin routinely publish scathing investigative articles that expose social ills and corruption. Caixin, for example, broke a series of articles about the business interests of the family of the former security chief Zhou Yongkang starting late last year.
That kind of reporting may be more difficult under the new rules, said Ji Shuoming, a Chinese journalist now based in Hong Kong, who added that aggressive investigative journalists will find it hard to write articles without venturing outside their beats or regions. That puts them at risk if their work draws the anger of any officials, he said.
“Now they have this rule, if they don’t like what you wrote they can say you violated the rules,” said Mr. Ji, who this year wrote an exposé about the business interests of Li Xiaolin, the daughter of former Prime Minister Li Peng.
The new rules come amid a surge in restrictions on expression following the elevation of Xi Jinping to the top leadership posts in November 2012. Last year, several bloggers were arrested after new restrictions onpublishing “rumors” were established by the state. Activists who have called for officials to declare their assets have been jailed.
With China’s severe pollution, food-safety worries and widespread official corruption, high-quality journalism is needed more than ever, said Sophie Richardson, the China director for Human Rights Watch.
“What public health scare or environmental disaster or toxic product won’t get reported?” Ms. Richardson said. “What corruption cases, unrest, or prosecutions won’t people get to know about? Closing the already narrow space for independent, critical journalism is a tremendous mistake.”

sexta-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2013

Republica Popular dos Hackers: um enxame a servico do Estado

As profecias de George Orwell, em 1984, podem estar erradas na sua formatação específica, mas elas estavam absolutamente certas no seu conteúdo substantivo. O Big Brother quer sempre se meter na sua vida, e determinar o que você pode, ou não pode fazer.
Eu mesmo fui testemunha da censura aplicada diversas vezes aos meios televisivos internacionais na China, cada vez que CNN, BBC ou outro canal "ocidental" abordava os assuntos sensíveis aos olhos do PCC: direitos humanos, Tibete, repressão política, prêmio Nobel a Liu Xiaobo, etc. A tela simplesmente ficava preta, e depois voltava ao normal. Quando a censura era muito extensa, os funcionários do setor até se davam ao trabalho de colocar no lugar publicidade do mesmo canal, para tentar sinalizar que tudo estava em ordem. A hipocrisia junta com desfaçatez e a mentira.
Um dos artigos sempre mais buscados em Hong Kong são justamente livros e revistas proibidos no continente. Junto com alguns outros que sofrem dos abusos do capitalismo desenfreado chinês.
Os companheiros adorariam dispor desse poder e dessa capacidade para penetrar na grande mídia, nos veículos do PIG, o partido da imprensa golpista, como eles dizem, para atrapalhar a vida de quem se opõe a seus instintos e vocação totalitários.
Vão precisar fazer novo convênio entre partidos amigos, para importar alguns dos hackers a serviço do Big Brother asiático...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Après le "New York Times", le "Wall Street Journal" victime de hackers chinois

Le Monde.fr avec AFP |


Le Wall Street Journal a indiqué, jeudi, que ses ordinateurs avaient été la cible de pirates informatiques chinois et dénoncé les tentatives de Pékin d'espionner ses journalistes.

Le quotidien économique a fait cette annonce au lendemain de celle du New York Times, celui-ci ayant affirmé que des pirates informatiques chinois avaient infiltré ses propres ordinateurs ces quatre derniers mois, en réponse à son reportage paru le 25 octobre sur la fortune amassée par les proches du premier ministre, Wen Jiabao, dans des affaires commerciales.
Le Wall Street Journal souligne ainsi que ces attaques avaient pour "but apparent de contrôler la couverture de la Chine" par ses journalistes, et laisse entendre que la pratique chinoise d'espionner les médias américains était devenue "un phénomène courant". "Des preuves montrent que ces efforts d'infiltration visent à contrôler la couverture par le journal de la Chine, et non à réaliser des gains commerciaux ou à détourner l'information des clients", souligne dans un communiqué Paula Keve, de l'agence Dow Jones, qui fait également partie avec son cousin Wall Street Journal du groupe News Corp du magnat Rupert Murdoch.
Le Wall Street Journal n'a pas précisé quand ces attaques informatiques avaient commencé mais a annoncé qu'une révision de son réseau informatique pour renforcer la sécurité avait été effectuée jeudi. "Nous avons la ferme intention de poursuivre notre pratique du journalisme de façon battante et indépendante", a assuré Paula Keve.


Jeudi en fin d'après-midi, la chaîne CNN a à son tour annoncé que le système informatique de son service international avait été bloqué pendant plusieurs minutes en réponse à son reportage sur le piratage du New York Times. "CNNI est devenu noir pendant six minutes", a tweeté l'une des journalistes de CNN International Hala Gorani. "La Chine a bloqué CNN en raison de l'interview de à Hala Gorani sur le piratage informatique du New York Times", pouvait-on lire.

quinta-feira, 31 de janeiro de 2013

Nossos aliados no BRICS: um caso exemplar de truculencia estatal...

Acho que os companheiros gostariam de ter o mesmo poder, deter as mesmas técnicas, importar os mesmos hackers, para fazer alguns trabalhinhos ordinários...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

BREAKING NEWS
The New York Times, Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:30 PM EST
Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months
For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees.
After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in.
The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings.
READ MORE »
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers-infiltrate-new-york-times-computers.html?hp&emc=na

Eis o motivo: 
O repórter DAVID BARBOZA, do New York Times, investigou o crescimento de patrimônio da família do primeiro-ministro chinês Wen Jiabao. De acordo com documentos públicos, a riqueza acumulada ultrapassa US$ 2.7 bilhões. Em retaliação, desde setembro o jornal identificou uma invasão de hackers chineses aos computadores e sistemas do Times, de onde obtiveram todos os arquivos relacionados à Wen e planejavam sabotar a impressão de algumas edições.

A matéria, tal como publicada:

Hackers in China Attacked The Times for Last 4 Months

A Cyberattack From China: TimesCast: Chinese hackers infiltrated The New York Times’s computer systems, getting passwords for its reporters and others.
SAN FRANCISCO — For the last four months, Chinese hackers have persistently attacked The New York Times, infiltrating its computer systems and getting passwords for its reporters and other employees. 
After surreptitiously tracking the intruders to study their movements and help erect better defenses to block them, The Times and computer security experts have expelled the attackers and kept them from breaking back in.
The timing of the attacks coincided with the reporting for a Times investigation, published online on Oct. 25, that found that the relatives of Wen Jiabao, China’s prime minister, had accumulated a fortune worth several billion dollars through business dealings.
Security experts hired by The Times to detect and block the computer attacks gathered digital evidence that Chinese hackers, using methods that some consultants have associated with the Chinese military in the past, breached The Times’s network. They broke into the e-mail accounts of its Shanghai bureau chief, David Barboza, who wrote the reports on Mr. Wen’s relatives, and Jim Yardley, The Times’s South Asia bureau chief in India, who previously worked as bureau chief in Beijing.
“Computer security experts found no evidence that sensitive e-mails or files from the reporting of our articles about the Wen family were accessed, downloaded or copied,” said Jill Abramson, executive editor of The Times.
The hackers tried to cloak the source of the attacks on The Times by first penetrating computers at United States universities and routing the attacks through them, said computer security experts at Mandiant, the company hired by The Times. This matches the subterfuge used in many other attacks that Mandiant has tracked to China.
The attackers first installed malware — malicious software — that enabled them to gain entry to any computer on The Times’s network. The malware was identified by computer security experts as a specific strain associated with computer attacks originating in China. More evidence of the source, experts said, is that the attacks started from the same university computers used by the Chinese military to attack United States military contractors in the past.
Security experts found evidence that the hackers stole the corporate passwords for every Times employee and used those to gain access to the personal computers of 53 employees, most of them outside The Times’s newsroom. Experts found no evidence that the intruders used the passwords to seek information that was not related to the reporting on the Wen family.
No customer data was stolen from The Times, security experts said.
Asked about evidence that indicated the hacking originated in China, and possibly with the military, China’s Ministry of National Defense said, “Chinese laws prohibit any action including hacking that damages Internet security.” It added that “to accuse the Chinese military of launching cyberattacks without solid proof is unprofessional and baseless.”
The attacks appear to be part of a broader computer espionage campaign against American news media companies that have reported on Chinese leaders and corporations.
Last year, Bloomberg News was targeted by Chinese hackers, and some employees’ computers were infected, according to a person with knowledge of the company’s internal investigation, after Bloomberg published an article on June 29 about the wealth accumulated by relatives of Xi Jinping, China’s vice president at the time. Mr. Xi became general secretary of the Communist Party in November and is expected to become president in March. Ty Trippet, a spokesman for Bloomberg, confirmed that hackers had made attempts but said that “no computer systems or computers were compromised.”
Signs of a Campaign
The mounting number of attacks that have been traced back to China suggest that hackers there are behind a far-reaching spying campaign aimed at an expanding set of targets including corporations, government agencies, activist groups and media organizations inside the United States. The intelligence-gathering campaign, foreign policy experts and computer security researchers say, is as much about trying to control China’s public image, domestically and abroad, as it is about stealing trade secrets.
Security experts said that beginning in 2008, Chinese hackers began targeting Western journalists as part of an effort to identify and intimidate their sources and contacts, and to anticipate stories that might damage the reputations of Chinese leaders.
In a December intelligence report for clients, Mandiant said that over the course of several investigations it found evidence that Chinese hackers had stolen e-mails, contacts and files from more than 30 journalists and executives at Western news organizations, and had maintained a “short list” of journalists whose accounts they repeatedly attack.
While computer security experts say China is most active and persistent, it is not alone in using computer attacks for a variety of national purposes, including corporate espionage. The United States, Israel, Russia and Iran, among others, are suspected of developing and deploying cyberweapons.
The United States and Israel have never publicly acknowledged it, but evidence indicates they released a sophisticated computer worm starting around 2008 that attacked and later caused damage at Iran’s main nuclear enrichment plant. Iran is believed to have responded with computer attacks on targets in the United States, including American banks and foreign oil companies.
Russia is suspected of having used computer attacks during its war with Georgia in 2008.
The following account of the attack on The Times — which is based on interviews with Times executives, reporters and security experts — provides a glimpse into one such spy campaign.
After The Times learned of warnings from Chinese government officials that its investigation of the wealth of Mr. Wen’s relatives would “have consequences,” executives on Oct. 24 asked AT&T, which monitors The Times’s computer network, to watch for unusual activity.
On Oct. 25, the day the article was published online, AT&T informed The Times that it had noticed behavior that was consistent with other attacks believed to have been perpetrated by the Chinese military.
The Times notified and voluntarily briefed the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the attacks and then — not initially recognizing the extent of the infiltration of its computers — worked with AT&T to track the attackers even as it tried to eliminate them from its systems.
But on Nov. 7, when it became clear that attackers were still inside its systems despite efforts to expel them, The Times hired Mandiant, which specializes in responding to security breaches. Since learning of the attacks, The Times — first with AT&T and then with Mandiant — has monitored attackers as they have moved around its systems.
Hacker teams regularly began work, for the most part, at 8 a.m. Beijing time. Usually they continued for a standard work day, but sometimes the hacking persisted until midnight. Occasionally, the attacks stopped for two-week periods, Mandiant said, though the reason was not clear.
Investigators still do not know how hackers initially broke into The Times’s systems. They suspect the hackers used a so-called spear-phishing attack, in which they send e-mails to employees that contain malicious links or attachments. All it takes is one click on the e-mail by an employee for hackers to install “remote access tools” — or RATs. Those tools can siphon off oceans of data — passwords, keystrokes, screen images, documents and, in some cases, recordings from computers’ microphones and Web cameras — and send the information back to the attackers’ Web servers.
Michael Higgins, chief security officer at The Times, said: “Attackers no longer go after our firewall. They go after individuals. They send a malicious piece of code to your e-mail account and you’re opening it and letting them in.”
Lying in Wait
Once hackers get in, it can be hard to get them out. In the case of a 2011 breach at the United States Chamber of Commerce, for instance, the trade group worked closely with the F.B.I. to seal its systems, according to chamber employees. But months later, the chamber discovered that Internet-connected devices — a thermostat in one of its corporate apartments and a printer in its offices — were still communicating with computers in China.
In part to prevent that from happening, The Times allowed hackers to spin a digital web for four months to identify every digital back door the hackers used. It then replaced every compromised computer and set up new defenses in hopes of keeping hackers out.
“Attackers target companies for a reason — even if you kick them out, they will try to get back in,” said Nick Bennett, the security consultant who has managed Mandiant’s investigation. “We wanted to make sure we had full grasp of the extent of their access so that the next time they try to come in, we can respond quickly.”
Based on a forensic analysis going back months, it appears the hackers broke into The Times computers on Sept. 13, when the reporting for the Wen articles was nearing completion. They set up at least three back doors into users’ machines that they used as a digital base camp. From there they snooped around The Times’s systems for at least two weeks before they identified the domain controller that contains user names and hashed, or scrambled, passwords for every Times employee.
While hashes make hackers’ break-ins more difficult, hashed passwords can easily be cracked using so-called rainbow tables — readily available databases of hash values for nearly every alphanumeric character combination, up to a certain length. Some hacker Web sites publish as many as 50 billion hash values.
Investigators found evidence that the attackers cracked the passwords and used them to gain access to a number of computers. They created custom software that allowed them to search for and grab Mr. Barboza’s and Mr. Yardley’s e-mails and documents from a Times e-mail server.
Over the course of three months, attackers installed 45 pieces of custom malware. The Times — which uses antivirus products made by Symantec — found only one instance in which Symantec identified an attacker’s software as malicious and quarantined it, according to Mandiant.
A Symantec spokesman said that, as a matter of policy, the company does not comment on its customers.
The attackers were particularly active in the period after the Oct. 25 publication of The Times article about Mr. Wen’s relatives, especially on the evening of the Nov. 6 presidential election. That raised concerns among Times senior editors who had been informed of the attacks that the hackers might try to shut down the newspaper’s electronic or print publishing system. But the attackers’ movements suggested that the primary target remained Mr. Barboza’s e-mail correspondence.
“They could have wreaked havoc on our systems,” said Marc Frons, the Times’s chief information officer. “But that was not what they were after.”
What they appeared to be looking for were the names of people who might have provided information to Mr. Barboza.
Mr. Barboza’s research on the stories, as reported previously in The Times, was based on public records, including thousands of corporate documents through China’s State Administration for Industry and Commerce. Those documents — which are available to lawyers and consulting firms for a nominal fee — were used to trace the business interests of relatives of Mr. Wen.
A Tricky Search
Tracking the source of an attack to one group or country can be difficult because hackers usually try to cloak their identities and whereabouts.
To run their Times spying campaign, the attackers used a number of compromised computer systems registered to universities in North Carolina, Arizona, Wisconsin and New Mexico, as well as smaller companies and Internet service providers across the United States, according to Mandiant’s investigators.
The hackers also continually switched from one I.P. address to another; an I.P. address, for Internet protocol, is a unique number identifying each Internet-connected device from the billions around the globe, so that messages and other information sent by one device are correctly routed to the ones meant to get them.
Using university computers as proxies and switching I.P. addresses were simply efforts to hide the source of the attacks, which investigators say is China. The pattern that Mandiant’s experts detected closely matched the pattern of earlier attacks traced to China. After Google was attacked in 2010 and the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists were opened, for example, investigators were able to trace the source to two educational institutions in China, including one with ties to the Chinese military.
Security experts say that by routing attacks through servers in other countries and outsourcing attacks to skilled hackers, the Chinese military maintains plausible deniability.
“If you look at each attack in isolation, you can’t say, ‘This is the Chinese military,’ ” said Richard Bejtlich, Mandiant’s chief security officer.
But when the techniques and patterns of the hackers are similar, it is a sign that the hackers are the same or affiliated.
“When you see the same group steal data on Chinese dissidents and Tibetan activists, then attack an aerospace company, it starts to push you in the right direction,” he said.
Mandiant has been tracking about 20 groups that are spying on organizations inside the United States and around the globe. Its investigators said that based on the evidence — the malware used, the command and control centers compromised and the hackers’ techniques — The Times was attacked by a group of Chinese hackers that Mandiant refers to internally as “A.P.T. Number 12.”
A.P.T. stands for Advanced Persistent Threat, a term that computer security experts and government officials use to describe a targeted attack and that many say has become synonymous with attacks done by China. AT&T and the F.B.I. have been tracking the same group, which they have also traced to China, but they use their own internal designations.
Mandiant said the group had been “very active” and had broken into hundreds of other Western organizations, including several American military contractors.
To get rid of the hackers, The Times blocked the compromised outside computers, removed every back door into its network, changed every employee password and wrapped additional security around its systems.
For now, that appears to have worked, but investigators and Times executives say they anticipate more efforts by hackers.
“This is not the end of the story,” said Mr. Bejtlich of Mandiant. “Once they take a liking to a victim, they tend to come back. It’s not like a digital crime case where the intruders steal stuff and then they’re gone. This requires an internal vigilance model.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: January 31, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the timing of a cyberattack that caused damage at Iran’s main nuclear enrichment plant. Evidence suggests that the United States and Israel released a computer worm around 2008, not 2012.

terça-feira, 1 de janeiro de 2013

China: os companheiros progressistas contra a midia conservadora...

Um exemplo do que os companheiros chamam de "controle social da mídia":
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Visa Issue in China Forces Out Times Reporter

BEIJING — A correspondent for The New York Times was forced to leave mainland China on Monday after the authorities declined to issue him a visa for 2013 by year’s end.
Chris Buckley, a 45-year-old Australian who has worked as a correspondent in China since 2000, rejoined The Times in September after working for Reuters. The Times applied for Mr. Buckley to be accredited to replace a correspondent who was reassigned, but the authorities did not act before Dec. 31, despite numerous requests. That forced Mr. Buckley, his partner and their daughter to fly to Hong Kong on Monday.
Normally, requests to transfer visas are processed in a matter of weeks or a couple of months.
The Times is also waiting for its new Beijing bureau chief, Philip P. Pan, to be accredited. Mr. Pan applied in March, but his visa has not been processed.
The visa troubles come amid government pressure on the foreign news media over investigations into the finances of senior Chinese leaders, a delicate subject. Corruption is widely reported in China, but top leaders are considered off limits.
On the day that The Times published a long investigation into the riches of the family of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, both its English-language Web site and its new Chinese-language site were blocked within China, and they remain so.
In June, the authorities blocked the English-language site of Bloomberg News after it published a detailed investigation into the family riches of China’s new top leader, Xi Jinping. Chinese financial institutions say they have been instructed by officials not to buy Bloomberg’s computer terminals, a lucrative source of income for the company.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs declined to comment on Mr. Buckley’s forced departure. Ministry officials have not said if they are linking Mr. Buckley’s visa renewal or Mr. Pan’s press accreditation to the newspaper’s coverage of China. In a statement, The Times urged the authorities to process Mr. Buckley’s visa as quickly as possible so that he and his family could return to Beijing.
“I hope the Chinese authorities will issue him a new visa as soon as possible and allow Chris and his family to return to Beijing,” Jill Abramson, the executive editor of The Times, said in the statement. “I also hope that Phil Pan, whose application for journalist credentials has been pending for months, will also be issued a visa to serve as our bureau chief in Beijing.”
The Times has six other accredited correspondents in China, and their visas were renewed for 2013 in a timely manner. David Barboza, the Shanghai bureau chief, who wrote the articles about Mr. Wen’s family, was among those whose visas were renewed.

domingo, 27 de março de 2011

Big Brother with chinese characteristics: the results are the same (or worse...)

Quando na China, eu tinha de usar um VPN, ou um provedor virtual de conexão à internet, do contrário eu simplesmente não conseguiria acessar decentemente sites e blogs fora da China, ou então me conectar a redes sociais. Seria impossível, simplesmente. E sem VPN, praticamente 70% dos clicks para acessar sites absolutamente inocentes, que não tinham nada a ver com direitos humanos, Tibete, ou qualquer outro tema sensível aos olhos do Big Brother, resultavam em redirecionamento para o Baidu, o que passa pelo Google chinês.
Claro, eu dispunha de 60 dólares para assinar um serviço estrangeiro de VPN, o que está fora do alcance da quase totalidade dos chineses.
O Big Brother continua eficiente, até o dia em que a coisa explode...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

China Tightens Censorship of Electronic Communications
By SHARON LaFRANIERE and DAVID BARBOZA
The New York Times, March 21, 2011
Editors' Note Appended

BEIJING — If anyone wonders whether the Chinese government has tightened its grip on electronic communications since protests began engulfing the Arab world, Shakespeare may prove instructive.

A Beijing entrepreneur, discussing restaurant choices with his fiancée over their cellphones last week, quoted Queen Gertrude’s response to Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The second time he said the word “protest,” her phone cut off.

He spoke English, but another caller, repeating the same phrase on Monday in Chinese over a different phone, was also cut off in midsentence.

A host of evidence over the past several weeks shows that Chinese authorities are more determined than ever to police cellphone calls, electronic messages, e-mail and access to the Internet in order to smother any hint of antigovernment sentiment. In the cat-and-mouse game that characterizes electronic communications here, analysts suggest that the cat is getting bigger, especially since revolts began to ricochet through the Middle East and North Africa, and homegrown efforts to organize protests in China began to circulate on the Internet about a month ago.

“The hard-liners have won the field, and now we are seeing exactly how they want to run the place,” said Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing analyst of China’s leadership. “I think the gloves are coming off.”

On Sunday, Google accused the Chinese government of disrupting its Gmail service in the country and making it appear as if technical problems at Google — not government intervention — were to blame.

Several popular virtual private-network services, or V.P.N.’s, designed to evade the government’s computerized censors, have been crippled. This has prompted an outcry from users as young as ninth graders with school research projects and sent them on a frustrating search for replacements that can pierce the so-called Great Firewall, a menu of direct censorship and “opinion guidance” that restricts what Internet users can read or write online. V.P.N.’s are popular with China’s huge expatriate community and Chinese entrepreneurs, researchers and scholars who expect to use the Internet freely.

In an apology to customers in China for interrupted service, WiTopia, a V.P.N. provider, cited “increased blocking attempts.” No perpetrator was identified.

Beyond these problems, anecdotal evidence suggests that the government’s computers, which intercept incoming data and compare it with an ever-changing list of banned keywords or Web sites, are shutting out more information. The motive is often obvious: For six months or more, the censors have prevented Google searches of the English word “freedom.”

But other terms or Web sites are suddenly or sporadically blocked for reasons no ordinary user can fathom. One Beijing technology consultant, who asked not to be identified for fear of retribution against his company, said that for several days last week he could not visit the Web site for the Hong Kong Stock Exchange without a proxy. LinkedIn, a networking platform, was blocked for a day during the height of government concerns over Internet-based calls for protests in Chinese cities a few weeks ago, he said.

Hu Yong, a media professor at Peking University, said government censors were constantly spotting and reacting to new perceived threats. “The technology is improving and the range of sensitive terms is expanding because the depth and breadth of things they must manage just keeps on growing,” Mr. Hu said.

China’s censorship machine has been operating ever more efficiently since mid-2008, and restrictions once viewed as temporary — like bans on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter — are now considered permanent. Government-friendly alternatives have sprung and developed a following.

Few analysts believe that the government will loosen controls any time soon, with events it considers politically sensitive swamping the calendar, including a turnover in the Communist Party’s top leadership next year.

“It has been double the guard, and double the guard, and you never hear proclamations about things being relaxed,” said Duncan Clark, chairman of BDA China, an investment and strategy consultancy based in Beijing, and a 17-year resident of China. “We have never seen this level of control in the time I have been here, and I have been here since the beginning of the Internet.”

How far China will clamp down on electronic communications is unclear. “There’s a lot more they can do, but they’ve been holding back,” said Bill Bishop, a Internet expert based in Beijing. Some analysts suggest that officials are exploring just how much inconvenience the Chinese are willing to tolerate. While sentiment is hard to gauge, a certain segment of society rejects censorship.

For many users, an inoperable V.P.N. is an inconvenience, not a crisis. But Internet consultants said interfering with an e-mail service on which people depend every day is more serious. “How people respond is going to be more intense, more visceral,” one consultant said.

Google began receiving complaints from Gmail users and its own employees in China about a month ago, around the time anonymous Internet posts urged people unhappy with the government to gather every Sunday. Some Gmail users found their service disconnected when they tried to send or save messages.

Engineers determined that there were no technical difficulties on Google’s end, Google said; rather, the hand of the Chinese government was at work. China’s Foreign Ministry did not respond Monday to calls or faxed questions about Google’s statement.

Disrupting Web sites and Internet connections is a standard tactic in dealing with companies that fall out of government favor. Mark Seiden, an Internet consultant, said Chinese officials typically left the companies and users to guess the reason.

In the Google case, an article on the Web site of People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s official publication, offered a strong hint. The March 4 article, attributed to a netizen, called Google a tool of the United States government. Like Facebook and Twitter, the article said, Google has “played a role in manufacturing social disorder” and sought to involve itself in other nations’ politics.

China has treated Google as a threat for some time. Last year, Google closed its search service and redirected Chinese users to Google’s Hong Kong site after the company said China was behind a cyberattack aimed partly at Gmail accounts.

Mr. Moses, the Beijing analyst, said the latest moves further expand government control of electronic communications. “The model for this government is that every day is a new challenge and a new opportunity to show the strength of the state here,” he said. “There is clear confidence in the capability of the political authorities to maintain order.”

Jonathan Ansfield contributed reporting from Beijing, and Claire Cain Miller from San Francisco. Jonathan Kaiman and Li Bibo contributed research from Beijing.

Editors' Note: March 26, 2011
An article on Tuesday about Chinese censorship of digital communications began with a description of two interrupted cellphone calls, which were cited as possible examples of “a host of evidence over the past several weeks” that the authorities were increasing their efforts out of concern that antigovernment sentiment might spread from Arab countries. In one call, a Beijing entrepreneur lost his cellphone connection after he used the English word “protest” twice. In the second, a call was lost after the speaker twice used the Chinese term for protest.

The article did not point out that in both cases, the recipients of the calls were in the Beijing bureau of The New York Times. Because scrutiny of press communications could easily be higher than for those of the public at large, the calls could not be assumed to represent a broader trend; therefore, those examples should not have been given such prominence in the article.

sábado, 9 de outubro de 2010

Big Brother vs CNN: continua o jogo de gato e rato...

Bem: já é um hábito. Não sou necessariamente fã da CNN, e não me informo prioritariamente pela TV, mas tenho deixado a TV ligada na CNN para ver até onde vai o ridículo espetáculo censório atualmente em curso.
Assim que a CNN passa a mencionar o caso do laureado chinês, hóspede temporário das prisões chinesas por ter colaborado na redação e divulgação de um manifesto democrático, os funcionários do Big Brother apertam o botão e a tela fica preta.
No meio da escuridão, para não ficar muito ridículo -- como se já não fosse -- aparecem algumas propagandas genéricas, reproduzidas da própria CNN, ou informações meteorológicas interrompidas, visivelmente improvisadas rapidamente, ou então um ou dois avisos na tela:
"Poor Quality Signal", ou "No Signal".
Sei...
Mais um pouco, tudo volta ao normal.
Assim é, se lhes parecem.
Big Brother misturado com Franz Kafka...

terça-feira, 1 de junho de 2010

30 Anos de CNN, with a little help of a big Big Brother...

Acabo de assistir o Estado orwelliano em ação, e os leitores deste blog poderão, ou não, confirmar minha suposição (por certo malévola e mal intencionada).

A CNN está comemorando 30 anos de atividades ininterruptas (não em todos os países, por certo), a partir de sua primeira transmissão a partir da Georgia, em 1980. Como parte da retrospectiva, a cadeia, que já foi depreciativamente chamada, quando começou, de Chicken Noodles Network, mostrou imagens dos seus 30 anos de reportagens, incluindo o desastre do Space Shuttle Columbia e a queda do muro do Berlim.
De repente, tudo fica cinza em meu aparelho Philips made in China (e como), com aqueles chuviscos tradicionais de interrupção de transmissão de imagem, durante quase 20 segundos, e depois tudo volta ao normal.
Minha hipótese, a ser confirmada pelos que eventualmente assistiram à mesma matéria em outros países (a ser repassada diversas vezes, suponho, nos próximos dias), é a de que as imagens suprimidas se referissem aos episódios da Praça (sem ironia) da Paz Celestial, ou Tian An Men, quando, em junho de 1989, tanques chineses afogaram no sangue os protestos dos estudantes por mais democracia. Aparentemente, cerca de 3 mil manifestantes desapareceram ou foram mortos (vocês escolhem) e China voltou ao seu regime político "normal" dos últimos 4 mil anos.

Aqui na China, diga-se de passagem, só tenho direito a assistir à versão asiática da CNN, à CNBC (uma rede de negócios) e à versão asiática da BBC News, além de uma versão pasteurizada (e horrível) de um canal francês (nem vale a pena mencionar o nome). Todo o resto é China, em vários molhos e apresentações, inclusive um canal da CCTV (a estatal local) em inglês, palatável em sua inocuidade bem comportada (ainda assim, muito melhor do que a porcaria que nos servem como TV estatal no Brasil).

Fico na espera da confirmação de minha hipótese, por parte de alguma alma caridosa e atenta à CNN. Confirmando-se, também imagino que fique confirmada a hipótese de transmissão diferida por alguns segundos, para dar tempos aos pequenos big brothers (devem existir milhares deles, sempre atentos em frente de todos os canais transmitidos do estrangeiro) de cortarem a transmissão. Se questionados, os responsáveis poderão sempre dizer que se tratou apenas de um "problema técnico".
Sorry, Dalai Lama, no chances for you...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
(Shanghai, 1.06.2010)