Friday, 3 July 2020

Photo: Urban night in Hong Kong, by inkelv1122

Urban night in Hong Kong, by inkelv1122 (CC BY-NC 2.0)

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/photo-urban-night-in-hong-kong-by-inkelv1122/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, 2 July 2020

Zhang Jieping: When Fear Comes, the First Thing to Retreat is Speech

Zhang Jieping is the founder and CEO of Matters Lab, a decentralized content platform. She is the former Editor-in-Chief of Initium Media and Executive Editor-in-Chief for iSun Affairs. Following the implementation of the new national security law in Hong Kong, she posted the following message on her Facebook account.

When fear comes, the first thing to retreat is speech.

I saw a similar retreat in 2019. It happened on the social media feeds of countless Chinese people who were sympathetic to Hong Kong. Perhaps they had done something as minor as posting a photo of a peaceful protest on Facebook. Or perhaps they said “Let’s go, Hong Kong.” Or perhaps they liked Joshua Wong’s Instagram post. Then someone (more often than not an acquaintance) would take a screenshot of their online activity and report them publicly. Their Weibo would get targeted. The police would pay them a visit. Their family would be threatened. Once someone got dragged into this black hole, it was as if they disappeared into a real black hole. They would shut down their social media, change their handles, block some friends, stop talking, stop speaking their minds. In the world of the internet, a person disappears when their speech is silenced.

Less than a year later, friends in Hong Kong are doing the same things. Familiar names have become unfamiliar. The messages from like-minded people that used to fill our Facebook pages are hard to see now. People begin deleting their earlier posts, even the meaningless ones. The National Security Law has cast a shadow. It took about 40 days for it to go from rumor to reality, and then more than ten hours after its passage for its content to be made public. This is a comprehensive law that carries the possible penalty of life imprisonment. But until last night, no one knew what was in it. In the past few days, people have swallowed what they wanted to say at the mere thought of how horrible the law could be. And after the law became public, people generally thought it was actually worse than they could have imagined. Their hesitant fear was finally realized. Whatever words were swallowed can never be spoken.

A subjugation in politics starts with a subjugation in speech. When you cannot speak your mind honestly, truthfully, and publicly, the basis for civic discussion is gone. The basis for dialogue, debate, thinking, and organization is lost. A community cannot exist without a voice.

To counter fear, the first thing we need to do is to take our speech back.

We have to take it back from the overbearing, state-sanctioned force; we have to take it back from the sense of guilt over the imprisonment of our peers. This is very difficult. But I firmly believe that this isn’t all-or-nothing. It is a process that can be studied and practiced, with each step having more support than the last one. When we say courage, standing, and self-pursuit, we can’t expect them to be handed to us. Maybe we should take this opportunity to learn and cultivate them one step at a time.

Amid this silence, I want to say special thanks to the Initium Media for putting together this Lennon Wall Collection.

The collection consists of more than 400 stickers and posters from last year. At the time, we took them for granted. The photos and the footage filled our hearts. We were touched, we called for action, we worried about the conflicts and the injuries. But now when I look back at these Post-It Notes and posters with detailed captions, I can only feel a sweeping sense of freedom in my heart.

And I’ve always believed that as long as we have this strong urge in our heart — just like these murmuring Post-It Notes, freedom will stay alive. It can’t be taken away from us. [Chinese]


Translation by Yakexi.

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: , , ,

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/zhang-jieping-when-fear-comes-the-first-thing-to-retreat-is-speech/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Wednesday, 1 July 2020

Photo: Luohu, by Anton Strogonoff

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/photo-luohu-by-anton-strogonoff/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

First Arrests Made Under National Security Law as Hong Kong Protesters Defy Government Ban

Authorities in Hong Kong moved quickly to implement the new national security law, which went into effect at 11 pm Tuesday evening. As protesters defied a government ban on marches to commemorate the 23rd anniversary of the return of the city to Chinese rule, police arrested close to 400 people, including 10 under the new law. Police also held aloft flags stating that any protest activity would be considered a violation of the law. The first arrest under the national security law was of a man holding a “Hong Kong Independence” sign. However, upon closer look, observers noticed that he had cheekily included, in very small print, “No to” before the slogan.

Dan Strumpf, Mike Bird, and Joyu Wang at The Wall Street Journal report on the protests and the government response:

Hundreds of Hong Kong police officers moved in swiftly to quash dissent and implement the law, which gives Beijing much greater powers to police the city and punish those accused of subversion and supporting separatism. Police fired tear gas, pepper spray and water cannons to disperse protesters and raised a banner to warn them that they could be violating the new law.

At the end of the day—the anniversary of Hong Kong’s 1997 handover from British colonial rule—the protests had dissipated, and police had arrested about 370 people, including 10 under the new law, which one senior Chinese official described Wednesday as a birthday present to the city.

The protests highlight the difficulty Beijing faces in suppressing dissent in a city that has become a global financial hub built on rule of law and Western-style freedoms. The new security law, which carries penalties of up to life imprisonment, risks further inflaming anti-Chinese sentiments in the city and triggering responses from Western governments that have criticized it as the greatest erosion of the city’s promised autonomy since the handover. [Source]

After the announcement of the new law, activists, writers, publishers, internet users, and others whose views don’t align with Beijing’s scrambled to remove any public expression of political opinion. Vivian Wang and Alexandra Stevenson report for The New York Times:

The law was proving effective in tamping down the anti-government demonstrations that have wracked Hong Kong for more than a year. On Wednesday, the anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese control — usually observed by huge pro-democracy marches — a scattered crowd of thousands protested, only to be corralled by the police and risk arrest for crimes that did not exist a day earlier.

[…] A museum that commemorates the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre is rushing to digitize its archives, afraid its artifacts could be seized. Booksellers are nervously eyeing customers, worried they could be government spies. Writers have asked a news site to delete more than 100 articles, anxious that old posts could be used against them.

“You can say this law is just targeting protesters and anti-Chinese politicians, but it could be anyone,” said Isabella Ng, a professor at the Education University of Hong Kong who founded a charity that helps refugees in the city.

[…] “If you haven’t tasted what tyranny is, be prepared, because tyranny is not comfortable,” said Bao Pu, the founder of New Century Press, one of the city’s few surviving independent publishers. [Source]

Several legal experts expressed concerns over the application of PRC law to Hong Kong under the guise of safeguarding national security, an apparent intrusion into Hong Kong’s autonomous legal system under the Basic Law. NPC Observer summarizes the main problems it sees with the new law:

Three aspects of the Law are particularly problematic: (1) its criminal provisions are worded in such a broad manner as to encompass a swath of what has so far been considered protected speech; (2) it provides for the direct application of mainland Chinese law—the notoriously restrictive Criminal Procedure Law [刑事诉讼法] no less—in Hong Kong in certain circumstances, outside the Annex III mechanism; and (3) it displaces certain core protections for the accused under Hong Kong law and grants the police sweeping investigative powers without judicial oversight. [Source]

In his analysis of the new law, legal scholar Donald Clarke notes that, “It’s not the substantive crimes and their definitions that count; it’s the institutions that will investigate, prosecute, and judge them that count.” To that point, he writes:

Article 48 is very important. It provides for the establishment within the territory of Hong Kong of a special Office for Safeguarding National Security. This Office is a mainland body like (for example) the Liaison Office, staffed by mainland officials appointed by mainland authorities. It has a number of functions, including, critically, the power to “handle” national security cases (Art. 49(4)). It can take jurisdiction over any case with the approval of the CPG (Art. 55). It can then send people back to China for processing (I suspect it would unduly dignify the proceedings to call them a “trial”) and sentencing in mainland institutions according to the Chinese Criminal Procedure Law (Art. 57). Article 56 says that the Supreme People’s Procuratorate will select the procuratorate that will prosecute, and the Supreme People’s Court will select the court that is to hear the case. (Just to be clear, in each case, the Law is clearly talking about mainland procuratorates and mainland courts.)

Let’s take a closer look at the powers of the Office and its personnel. Here we see something really remarkable. First, Article 57 states that with respect to measures undertaken according to law (this is not a meaningful qualifier) by the Office, relevant organs, organizations, and individuals must obey. Whatever the Office says, you must do. [Source]

In a previous blog post, Clarke wrote that under the law, staff of the Office for Safeguarding National Security are not bound by any law within Hong Kong or within mainland China, calling it “real Gestapo-level stuff.”

Jeremy Daum at China Law Translate points out that the law establishes a bifurcated criminal procedure under which mainland authorities can take control of national security cases and apply mainland law:

The Central government can authorize its National Security Office to take direct jurisdiction at the request of either Hong Kong’s Commission or the Office itself in any of three broad situations: 1) when the involvement of foreign forces makes it hard for Hong Kong to handle the case; 2) The Hong Kong government can’t effectively implement the law, and 3) when faced with significant real threats to national security. [55]

In these cases, the Office will conduct the investigation itself, and prosecutors and judges will be selected by the mainland’s Supreme Court and Procuratorate. [55] From investigation through the enforcement of penalties, the mainland Criminal Procedure Law will govern, including limiting access to an attorney to after the first interrogation or the imposition of ‘compulsory measures’. [57,58].

The work of the Office is told to comply with Hong Kong’s laws as well as national laws, under supervision of the mainland procuratorate, but is not subject to Hong Kong law or interference by local authorities. [60]

Both the local and central government jurisdictional paths apply only to certain types of crimes, namely: Separatism (secession), Subversion of State Power, Terrorism, and Collusion with Foreign or Taiwan Forces. The law breaks down the elements for each of these offenses, some of which include only speech or advocacy, and others rely on subjective assessments that may be difficult to apply. Terrorism, for example, includes conduct that is violent or destructive, but only when it is meant to further a political agenda through coercion or intimidation, a more subjective standard. [Source]

Some activists in Hong Kong now fear that their treatment will be no different from their counterparts in China. The New York Times’ Li Yuan interviewed social scientist, professor, and co-founder of Hong Kong’s 79-day Occupy movement Chan Kin-man about Hong Kong’s new reality:

I caught up with Mr. Chan after the passage of the national security law. “With the law, we’re living in a big prison,” he said. “There’s no difference between Hong Kong and Beijing now.”

In another sign of the rising anxiety level in Hong Kong, his new book, “Chan Kin-man: Letters from Prison,” sold 2,000 copies in presale and bookstore orders this month. Books like this usually sell only a few hundreds copies, he said.

The demand wasn’t only driven by an interest in the prison experience, he said. “Everyone needs to face the question: In an environment with diminishing freedom and growing suppression, how are we going to keep cool and not crash?”

As someone who dedicated his life to studying and building civil society, Mr. Chan said he was confident that in the long run Hong Kong would prove its resilience. People just needed time to adjust to the darkness, he added. [Source]

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying took to Twitter to defend the implementation of the law and to lash out at critics, notably the U.S.:

Canada, meanwhile, issued a travel warning for Hong Kong, stating that Canadian citizens “may be at increased risk of arbitrary detention on national security grounds and possible extradition to mainland China.”

See also “The ‘Restructuring’ of Hong Kong and the Rise of Neostatism” by Sebastian Veg for Toqueville21 for more about the erosion of Hong Kong’s legal guarantees “under the imperative of reasserting Chinese sovereignty.”

© Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: , , ,

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/first-arrests-made-under-national-security-law-as-hong-kong-protesters-defy-government-ban/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Minitrue: Delete Content on Newsweek Issue

The following censorship instructions, issued to the media by government authorities, have been leaked and distributed online. The name of the issuing body has been omitted to protect the source.

All websites, find and delete reports, articles, and comments related to the latest edition of the U.S. magazine Newsweek. (June 15, 2020) [Source]

The directive may refer to Newsweek’s June 26 issue, which featured a cover story by David Brennan on the erosion of Hong Kong’s freedom and autonomy. (The dates by which each issue is identified lag well behind actual physical distribution and online availability.) The article focuses on a police ban on Hong Kong’s annual Tiananmen vigil—which went defiantly ahead regardless, albeit on a smaller than normal scale—and the implications of the then-looming National Security Law which was imposed on the territory by mainland authorities on Tuesday this week.

A wider version of the cover cartoon accompanied Brennan’s article showing a Taiwan flag on another plate to Xi’s left, with a hand removing a silver cover from a third plate whose contents remain obscured. "The implications of Hong Kong’s plight are far-reaching," Brennan warned. "China-skeptics are coalescing in the face of Beijing’s unapologetically authoritarian march to superpower status, warning that what Hong Kong faces now is what others—Taiwan, among the first—may face in the future."

Xi had previously graced the magazine’s cover only weeks previously, looming over a miniature Donald Trump in a warning of "a new Cold War" which "this time the Communists might win." Newsweek’s other recent China coverage includes more on Hong Kong and U.S.-China rivalry, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other potentially sensitive topics.

真Since directives are sometimes communicated orally to journalists and editors, who then leak them online, the wording published here may not be exact. Some instructions are issued by local authorities or to specific sectors, and may not apply universally across China. The date given may indicate when the directive was leaked, rather than when it was issued. CDT does its utmost to verify dates and wording, but also takes precautions to protect the source. See CDT’s collection of Directives from the Ministry of Truth since 2011.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/minitrue-delete-content-on-newsweek-issue/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

India Bans Chinese Apps Amid Privacy Concerns, Border Tensions

On Monday, Indian authorities announced a ban on dozens of Chinese apps including WeChat, Weibo, and TikTok. The official statement on the ban cited national security and consumer privacy, reflecting a broader global trend of wariness toward Chinese tech exports as possible vectors for influence or espionage. The backdrop also includes deadly clashes between the two countries’ soldiers in disputed border territories, with political tension and public fury in their wake. From the statement:

The Ministry of Information Technology, invoking it’s power under section 69A of the Information Technology Act read with the relevant provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009 and in view of the emergent nature of threats has decided to block 59 apps (see Appendix) since in view of information available they are engaged in activities which is prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.

Over the last few years, India has emerged as a leading innovator when it comes to technological advancements and a primary market in the digital space.

At the same time, there have been raging concerns on aspects relating to data security and safeguarding the privacy of 130 crore Indians. It has been noted recently that such concerns also pose a threat to sovereignty and security of our country. The Ministry of Information Technology has received many complaints from various sources including several reports about misuse of some mobile apps available on Android and iOS platforms for stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India. The compilation of these data, its mining and profiling by elements hostile to national security and defence of India, which ultimately impinges upon the sovereignty and integrity of India, is a matter of very deep and immediate concern which requires emergency measures.

The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs has also sent an exhaustive recommendation for blocking these malicious apps. This Ministry has also received many representations raising concerns from citizens regarding security of data and risk to privacy relating to operation of certain apps. The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) has also received many representations from citizens regarding security of data and breach of privacy impacting upon public order issues. Likewise, there have been similar bipartisan concerns, flagged by various public representatives, both outside and inside the Parliament of India. There has been a strong chorus in the public space to take strict action against Apps that harm India’s sovereignty as well as the privacy of our citizens.

On the basis of these and upon receiving of recent credible inputs that such Apps pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of India, the Government of India has decided to disallow the usage of certain Apps, used in both mobile and non-mobile Internet enabled devices. These apps are listed in the attached appendix.

This move will safeguard the interests of crores of Indian mobile and internet users. This decision is a targeted move to ensure safety and sovereignty of Indian cyberspace. [Source]

The ban will be implemented with a combination of blocks by internet service providers and removals from app stores. An unnamed Indian official told The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday that "we have already asked Google and Apple to take note of the government’s latest decision and remove the apps” and “they are in the process of executing the ban.” TikTok reportedly withdrew its app and halted service preemptively.

Apple in particular has attracted widespread criticism for complying with Chinese App Store takedowns in the past. This was the focus of an online conference timed to coincide with the company’s World Wide Developers’ Conference last week, featuring panel discussions with CDT founder Xiao Qiang and others.

Despite some Schadenfreude over targeted companies receiving a taste of traditionally Chinese medicine, critics have pointed out that the Indian move reflects an expansion and normalization of similarly authoritarian tendencies:

From Raymond Zhong and Kai Schultz at The New York Times:

Dev Khare, a partner at the venture firm Lightspeed India, acknowledged that India’s app ban was a populist, “feel-good” step in some ways. He does not, however, see it as a bolt out of the blue.

“It’s something that China did a long time ago,” Mr. Khare said. “If this is what China does to the rest of the world, then the rest of the world has the right to do it to China.”

[…] Watchdog groups, however, have noted with concern the Modi government’s tendency to use sweeping policy instruments for political ends.

“In terms of being a singular act of web censorship, it’s impacted more Indians than any before,” said Apar Gupta, executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, which promotes digital liberties in India.

The current political climate in India is one in which nationalist sentiment is likely to be accommodated above other considerations, Mr. Gupta said.

“Any kind of public policy response which is premised on grounds of national security needs to emerge from well-defined criteria, which seems to be absent here,” he said. [Source]

The Wall Street Journal’s Rajesh Roy and Shan Li further discussed the ban’s context and likely impact:

“The digital war between China and India is hotting up because there is a heavy propaganda element infused with internet based nationalism on both sides,” said Sreeram Chaulia, Dean at Jindal School of International Affairs in Haryana State near Delhi.

Mr. Chaulia said India would like to wean its citizens from dependence on Chinese goods and services—particularly online—to prevent Beijing from dividing Indian society and weakening New Delhi’s resolve to counter China on the border dispute and broader bilateral strategic competition.

[…] Indian officials already have said they would bar their state-run telecom companies from purchasing equipment from Chinese companies such as ZTE Corp. and Huawei Technologies Co. for future 4G mobile networks. Indian authorities have also privately warned telecom operators against working with Chinese companies in the rollout of new 5G networks. As recently as December, Huawei and ZTE were welcomed to participate in India’s 5G trials.

[…] TikTok is bigger in India than anywhere else outside of China, owing to the South Asian nation’s massive population and legions of young and largely unemployed fans. The app was downloaded 611 million times in two years on Apple Inc.’s app store and Alphabet Inc.’s Google Play, according to research firm Sensor Tower. Young people are often found in parks and parking lots shooting 15-second videos that mimic the song-and-dance-infused movies of Bollywood, the country’s film industry. [Source]

Chinese apps’ success in India had met a backlash even before the current standoff. An Android app for purging phones of Chinese software was downloaded around five million times between its launch in May and its removal from the Google Play store in early June, topping the country’s download rankings for two days.

Twitter commentary on the ban’s impact included some mixed assessments:

Others focused on Chinese reactions:

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian addressed the news in a relatively muted tone at a regular press briefing on Tuesday:

Reuters: India says it is taking action to ban several dozens of Chinese apps in the country citing national security concerns. What’s the foreign ministry’s comment on this?

Zhao Lijian: China has noted the press release issued by the Indian side with strong concern and is now verifying the situation. I want to stress that the Chinese government consistently asks Chinese enterprises to abide by international rules and local laws and regulations when conducting external cooperation. The Indian government has the responsibility to protect the legitimate rights and interests of international investors in India, including Chinese businesses, in accordance with market principles. Practical cooperation between China and India is mutually beneficial. Deliberate interference in such cooperation will not serve the interests of the Indian side. [Source]

A stronger statement came from China’s embassy in New Delhi. Its complaint that the ban "selectively and discriminatorily aims at certain Chinese apps on ambiguous and far-fetched grounds, runs against fair and transparent procedure requirements, abuses national security exceptions, and suspects of violating the WTO rules" raised eyebrows.

As for other possible responses, The Financial Times’ Chris Nuttall suggested that "a tech tit-for-tat would be pointless, given the lack of Indian penetration of the Chinese market. [… T]he fallout could come elsewhere, such as in India’s pharmaceuticals sector, with drugmakers relying on China for well over two-thirds of raw ingredients."

At The Financial Times, Stephanie Findlay, Ryan McMorrow, and Henny Sender reported on the privacy aspect of the case:

India will summon dozens of Chinese tech companies to answer accusations they are “surreptitiously stealing data”, with officials declining to outline how long the process will take.

[…] “We have been invited to meet with concerned government stakeholders for an opportunity to respond and submit clarifications,” said Nikhil Gandhi, head of TikTok India, in a statement.

Mr Gandhi said TikTok had complied with Indian data privacy and security requirements and that it had “not shared any information of our users in India with any foreign government, including the Chinese Government”.

An official at India’s Meity [Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology] said a full investigation into all the apps was under way. “First the committee will examine the evidence given against them [the apps], then after examination, companies will be given a chance to explain,” said the official, who could not give a timeframe for the process. [Source]

TikTok has attracted particularly intense and sustained recent scrutiny as “the first Chinese app to truly pierce the global Internet mainstream.” The company has responded by disavowing controversial content management practices as clumsy provisional measures taken in its early days and since abandoned; installing a new CEO and downplaying its Chinese ownership; and establishing a "Transparency Center" and an ethical advisory council. As part of this professed commitment to transparency, the firm recently revealed details of its recommendation system, whose role as the mysterious gatekeeper to success and failure on the platform has made it the subject of frenzied speculation and gaming attempts. This revelation was swiftly followed by fresh controversy, however, over covert and unexplained scanning of users’ clipboard contents.

Notably, the same behavior was also found in Weibo’s app, as well as others including those of ABC, CBC, CBS, CNBC, Fox News, The New York Times, NPR, Reuters, Russia Today, The Economist, The Huffington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Vice News, and games such as Bejeweled, Fruit Ninja, and Tencent’s PUBG Mobile. Stronger accusations aimed at TikTok have also circulated, but have drawn some criticism from privacy experts amid disagreement over how exceptional the firm’s practices really are.

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/india-bans-chinese-apps-amid-privacy-concerns-border-tensions/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:

Photo: View up Victoria Harbour, by 57Andrew

View up Victoria Harbour, by 57Andrew (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), get_post_time('Y'). | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us
Post tags:

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh



source https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2020/07/photo-view-up-victoria-harbour-by-57andrew/
Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)