Slashdot Mirror


China's All-Seeing Eye

krou writes "Naomi Klein writes in Rolling Stone Magazine about China's Panopticon-like experiment called 'Golden Shield' taking place in Shenzhen using technology supplied by companies such as IBM, Honeywell, and General Electric. Klein writes: 'Chinese citizens will be watched around the clock through networked CCTV cameras and remote monitoring of computers. They will be listened to on their phone calls, monitored by digital voice-recognition technologies. Their Internet access will be aggressively limited through the country's notorious system of online controls known as the "Great Firewall." Their movements will be tracked through national ID cards with scannable computer chips and photos that are instantly uploaded to police databases and linked to their holder's personal data.' According to Klein, this is more than just a Chinese experiment, it's also one that holds ramifications for America and elsewhere: '...the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state... The global corporations currently earning superprofits from this social experiment are unlikely to be content if the lucrative new market remains confined to cities such as Shenzhen. Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you.'"

18 of 358 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Bla bla bla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Bla bla bla... capitalist this... panopticon that... bla bla bla." Rolling Stone magazine? Give me a break. Excellent argument, so good that it does not and have to touch any of the issues raised by rolling stone magazine. (Even rolling stone magazine have published many good and informative article with regards to politics). Truely blah blah blah
  2. Re:Bla bla bla by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rolling Stone magazine? Give me a break. Despite its counterculture reputation and its focus as a music/gossip magazine, Rolling Stone is consistently one of the better sources of news analysis available. This article is an excellent example of that, if you actually bother to read it (and it has already generated quite a bit of attention outside of slashdot, whether or not you agree with Klein's political leanings). An even finer example, IMHO, is Wallace-Wells' critique of the war on drugs.
  3. 1984 Quote by EEPROMS · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed--if all records told the same tale--then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"

  4. Re:Is it April 1, 2009? by NoobixCube · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's nothing to do with them being Communists. Actually, if they were to do something with Communist motivation, it would be feeding the poor. This is more about stamping out sedition. Something any government could do, completely separate from their political style.

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  5. Re:Goodness, what trash by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With due respect, this article isn't about a totalitarian state that watches it's citizens; it's about the fact that US companies are the one's who are making it possible.

    --
    "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
  6. Re:I'm being entirely serious. by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Be your own news source, instead of settling for second-hand sensationalism."

    So you are suggesting that once we succeed at being our own news source we keep that info to ourselves? If I chose Rolling Stone to disseminate the information I gathered firsthand it would immediately be devalued?

    The RS article is old news, all of which I have seen reported elsewhere in recent weeks, but I fail to see how it is counterproductive to publicize the evolution of surveillance states.

    On a side note, Rolling Stone being a glossy mag came about as a nod to the power of photojournalism in popular culture. There are anthologies published of RS photos and they hold significant historical and artistic value. As a disclaimer, I haven't been interested enough in pop culture to actually pick up an issue in years, but that doesn't mean the value isn't still there for others.

  7. Re:Bla bla bla by Davemania · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am a bit dumbfounded by your approach to reading article. You need trust to read something ? What happened to critical anaylsis. I think most "reasonable" people will read an article and analysis the content of the article rather than taking the content on blind faith. You've basically judged an article simply by the publisher without even considering any of the issues brought up from the article. It seems the question isn't whether you should trust it or not, its whether you can make an informed judgment, and it doesn't seem you can.

  8. China is not commie by gregbot9000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And it's not Capitalist, it's a wonderful halfway point called fascist.

    From TFA: "Remember how we've always been told that free markets and free people go hand in hand? That was a lie. It turns out that the most efficient delivery system for capitalism is actually a communist-style police state"

    Free markets require the freedom to chose without coercion in order to be efficient for everyone involved. China does not have a free market. The transactions are not efficient for the low man on the totem pole, namely the worker. China is fascist, and the country is a giant form of monopoly that has huge profit margins by manipulating the labor supply and the rights afforded to individuals to drive down costs. Just because China is having huge profits does not mean they are more efficient.

    A lot of people will go on about the horrible violation to civil liberties all of these things China does are, but no one ever talks about the horrible damage these things do to the economic well being of the country.
    China IS going to undergo serious reform or revolution. It won't be possible to maintain any level of efficiency without the proper rule of law or a Meritocracy. China WILL become more efficient once more people start demanding a larger share, and the only way they can do this is through greater representation and markets, markets that need informed consumers who are not being forced to act against their best interests.
    All successful revolutions have come from the middle to upper class capitalists who are feed up with kings and lords ruling by mandate cutting into their bottom line. China is no different.
    From TFA "With political unrest on the rise across China, the government hopes to use the surveillance shield to identify and counteract dissent before it explodes into a mass movement"
    If someone is dissenting that means there is something that needs to be changed. That is the best example of why china, like the USSR, will hit a standard of living wall. Efficiency requires freedom.

  9. Re:Bla bla bla by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When you reduce Thompson to "a sensationalist" I suddenly take you far less seriously. Yes, he had outrageous style but he was a trenchant observer.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  10. Re:Goodness, what trash by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "that modern China represents a form of authoritarian capitalism whose efficiency is quite remarkable"

    I think its open to debate if China is remarkable for its "efficiency". It mostly just has lots of cheap labor, no labor unions and very weak pollution and safety regulation which means its a cheap place to do things like manufacturing. There are quite a few things working against its economic efficiency.

    A. The party officials that run the place are extremely corrupt. Corruption is good for business only if it swings your way. If it swings against you, or for your competition it is quite bad for business, and the unpredictability of corruption is especially bad for business.

    B. The legal frameworks in the country are extremely poor. This is a plus if you ware a bootlegger ripping off your competition's product, its not so good if your IP and products are the ones being ripped off.

    C. Not sure exactly why but China did apparently pass new labor laws around the first of the year and they undid some of the slave labor aspects of being a worker in China. Workers did actually get some rights under the new laws and it appears they are going to cause a significant spike in the cost of labor, along with the simple fact labor isn't as abundant in China as it once was. This along with a number of other factors is causing wage inflation and making China less and less attractive to Capitalism. The factors that made China boom can also work against it and lead to a bust and for the boom to move elsewhere.

    D. China's one child policy is starting to cause a severe shortage of young workers since it began in 1979. Their population is going to start become senior citizen heavy like Japan and the U.S. which has a lot of negative economic consequences. Most older workers can't stand the dormitories and 6-7 day work weeks in China's factories so as the young labor pool drops its going to hammer their sweat shop manufacturing industries.

    E. Censorship might have its positives in that it helps eliminate dissent but it also means you can do some incredibly stupid stuff and get away with it because you can suppress knowledge of your stupidity. A free press and a free Internet can server a useful purpose in that it can eventually expose corruption, incompetence and stupidity and led to corrective action if the press and freedom of speech works. For example in the U.S. the free press went dysfunctional after 9/11 and untold stupidity was perpetrated by the Bush administration like the war in Iraq, torture and domestic spying. The press still isn't very healthy but America has started to throw the Republican's out of power for their incompetence, though the Democrats are much of an improvement. In China is if the ruling party turns bad, there are no alternatives except for changing one set of Communist party leaders for another in an internal power struggle.

    F. The spiking cost of oil is suddenly starting to work against globalization. Not sure how accurate it is but someone on CNBC said the cost to ship a container from China to the U.S. has quadrupled recently from $2K to $8K and if oil prices continue to spike its going to be less and less attractive to ship goods half way around the world. Its already working against heavy goods with a low labor component like steel. The more expensive fuel gets the less likely you are going to offshore manufacturing for the U.S. and Europe to China. Mexico may become increasingly attractive again for the U.S. labor pool.

    --
    @de_machina
  11. Re:I'm being entirely serious. by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So... not being a glossy magazine, or, as far as I can see, involved, what does your opinion matter? You can't seem to verify, or disprove Rolling Stone's information, you haven't posted any proof that you are actually in China, or have witnessed anything there, you provide no credentials, and so by your own criteria why should anyone listen to you?

    Basically your response is to tell people to discredit a source because you don't like them. This isn't even weak proof, since your subjective opinion is worth less than even Rolling Stone's. Any moron can get a /. account, get good karma, and post. At least the RS there is an editorial board, hiring procedures, and I'm guessing some degree of journalistic standard.

    Yes, I won't take the spin as fact since spin is opinion. but the actual events seem worth further examination, and are easily verifiable.

    The same goes for the "spin" you yourself are projecting...

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  12. Re:Bla bla bla by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, why develop critical reading skills when you can rather lay your trust in known authority. If a source is good, the information will be good, if a source is bad, the information will be wrong. I know this because everything I read confirms my worldview.

  13. Re:heh, well ibm helped nazis too, so why not by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From a purely economic point of view, the borders between fascism (of which national socialism is a variant, mixed in with some chauvinism) and capitalism are blurry. Or rather, capitalism as we know it.

    In a fascist economy, everything is secondary to industrial growth. It's an "ask what you can do for your country" world. You better not ask what your country can do for you, since you don't count. The strength of your country and its economy does. This goes hand in hand with laws that prefer the interests of industry and commerce, while ignoring the needs of the people.

    Bluntly, this is closer to what China is like today than any socialist or communist model. And thinking about it, we're moving there, too.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Re:Bla bla bla by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, but what you're doing to the article here is called ad hominem, and it's a fallacy. If you want to ignore it on account of the publisher, feel free to do so -- but if you're going to speak regarding the article's merits, it behooves you to read it first.

    It's a heckuvalot more informative than your post, and raises legitimate issues (ie. mechanisms in use to circumvent laws specifically forbidding export of law enforcement equipment to China) even should you choose to ignore the editorializing.

  15. Re:Bla bla bla by ATMAvatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Truthfully, the hand-holding reporting when it comes to the U.S. Government from U.S. media is less about right/left bias and more about access. To get the juicy stories out in time to "scoop" or at least keep-up with competitors, a news outlet must fall within the good graces of the government.

    Sure, you can print an article outlining all the gross incompetence and criminal behavior of the current administration, but then you can kiss any hope of being invited to a presidential press conference ever again. And, when you start becoming the last news outlet to print stories about politics, your readers switch to another news station that gets the stories faster, even if the other station consistently has a pro-administration slant.

    The problem with U.S. media isn't one of bias - it's one of business needs trumping journalistic integrity.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  16. Re:Klein's a Leftist with an agenda, not a journal by Aceticon · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Actually the sweet spot for Capitalism seems to be when people are not free but believe they are free.

    The right balance between keeping the rift-raft under control and keeping them motivated and working hard = maximum profit.

    This goes a long way to explain why the memes of "America land of the free", "America the greatest country in the world" and "In the US everybody has a chance to make it big-time" are constantly being pushed by US media, even though nowadays they are all false:

    But hey, it's still better than North Korea.

    Signed: One European that has been exposed to one too many ignorant American.

    PS: In my experience, most Americans I've met that actually spent some time living and working in a country other than the US - vacations do not count - are usually much more well informed and realist about the US itself and the rest of the world than most of those who didn't.
  17. Re:George Orwell, anyone? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    as long as the language doesn't cross the line, i.e., overthrowing the government, nobody cares. Nobody cares as long as the person saying it is a nobody and remains obscure. However, it is convenient for those in power to have the ability to go back and dig up dirt on anyone who becomes a "trouble maker" or problem to somebody in power in the future. The fact that governments have these powers is dangerous, whether or not the actually use them, because they *could* use them if they wanted to against their political opponents. The mere suggestion or threat that the powers could be used or abused is enough to create fear and control. In fact, this was part of the original theory behind the Panopticon, it was not necessary to actually monitor the prisoners at all times because the prisoners could not tell when they were being monitored or when a previously made recording (once recording and database technology became practical) might be reviewed. The mere threat or possibility of monitoring created fear and control.
  18. Re:George Orwell, anyone? by CodeBuster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One is very safe walking around, even late at night. Try that in Philly, or Miami, or any large American city. There are probably very few people who would take the position that a Police State is completely devoid of any possible benefits, fringe or otherwise. However, most of us who live in Europe and the United States are of the opinion that those benefits, which are probably few and far between, are not worth the costs of giving up what we regard as essential rights and freedoms. I for one will take a little crime any day if the alternative is effectively unlimited secret police powers to search, seize, and detain at will. I would rather have my freedoms and take my chances with those other people who might abuse theirs than see everyone stripped of their freedoms in the name of public safety.