Slashdot Mirror


China Bans Military Personnel From Blogging

eldavojohn writes "China has banned all 2.3M members of its military from blogging — even personal, non-military blogs. From the announcement of the new regulation: 'Soldiers cannot open blogs on the Internet no matter (whether) he or she does it in the capacity of a soldier or not. The Internet is complicated and we should guard against online traps.' While the official word seems to not be translated to English yet, the same apparently goes for websites or homepages owned by soldiers; there is no indication as to whether or not this applies to sites like Facebook or Renren (which the USMC bans). Similarly, as of 2007, the US requires active duty soldiers to clear any posting with a superior officer, and Israel had to cancel an operation due to a Facebook status update. A military blog aggregating site claims only a few Chinese military blogs indexed, but it looks like as of June 15 that list may have shortened."

82 comments

  1. A Natural OPSEC Move by cmholm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This makes perfect sense, OPSEC-wise, and within the context of Chinese culture, I suspect is no big deal.

    From what I've seen, this wouldn't be a completely insane idea to apply to members of the US armed forces. But, given the role of reservists and the existing penetration of the social web into the demographic of those currently serving, this would be a bear to enforce, and result in a storm of protest, on the assumption it's goal was to cut off alternative sources of information on the situation in Afghanistan.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    1. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From what I've seen, this wouldn't be a completely insane idea to apply to members of the US armed forces.

      Except that it is contrary to the US constitution. Yes, I know there are some "reasonable" restrictions on military personel (I'm ex USAF) such as going to protests in uniform (reasonable) but if you told everyone in the military that they are no longer allowed to have a personal webpage, blog or have a presence on the internet otherwise, you would have a mutiny on your hands.

      It is in the military's interests to insure that those who serve are of good moral character and act responsibly. It is counter to the mission to completely censor free speech. While the statement "we are here to protect democracy, not practice it" applies to the chain of command, it doesn't mean that those who serve have actual rights taken away wholesale.

      It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, or Iraq, or policy. It has to do with US personnel having the most basic right, that of free speech, taken away. This violates the First Amendment, and likely Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment since it can be perceived as a punishment (loss of liberty) for a crime neither committed nor where there is a conviction.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by cmholm · · Score: 1

      Except that it is contrary to the US constitution [...], it doesn't mean that those who serve have actual rights taken away wholesale.

      Re: Constitutional rights, point well taken. Ultimately, Constitutional rights are whatever the Supreme Court says they are (within limits of impeachment and Amendments, naturally), but I'll hope no regulation of this sort ever arises to test my contention.

      --
      Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
    3. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by hedwards · · Score: 0

      Umm, the US constitution doesn't apply to service personnel. If you want into the military you have to sign away all that in order to serve.

    4. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, OPSEC is a tough thing to enforce. When I used to be able to receive AFN, I remember constantly seeing OPSEC ads. Even pointing out simple stuff, like, don't talk about having to stock up on warm/cold clothing in public.

      An interesting OPSEC anecdote. During the first Gulf War, a Saudi small shop owner told a reporter that the land invasion was about to take place. How did he know? All the soldiers were coming into his shop, and were buying lots of batteries. They were stocking up for the coming invasion he deduced.

      So given that, someone is bound to give away something unintentionally on a blog or social site.

      Awareness is the key to fighting this.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I should've said much of it doesn't apply, not none of it. Sigh. One of the things I hate about /. is no editing and being locked out when you typed it wrong.

    6. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Hm.. if soldiers normally post blogs and status updates... a sudden lack of posting by many soldiers could in itself suggest something is afoot.

      Maybe a smart military would exploit the blogs/FB pages of its soldiers, to sometimes have fake updates generated that would give an enemy the wrong idea....

      e.g. Maybe the enemy should think there is an invasion that is going to happen, when nothing is happening, other than a surveillance of their response, OR a completely different attack is happening, that they would become more vulnerable to in preparing to what the FB updates suggested was happening

    7. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Maybe a smart military would exploit the blogs/FB pages of its soldiers, to sometimes have fake updates generated that would give an enemy the wrong idea....

      This is not a new idea, and was practiced with much success before the Normandy invasion in World War II. Back then it was fake radio traffic, instead of fake Face Book updates, though. The Allies fooled the Germans into believing that another invasion army, which did not exist, was preparing to land at Pas de Calais: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fortitude

      I wouldn't be surprised if stuff like this wasn't practiced today. It depends on the enemy, and what intelligence gathering techniques they have, which can be fooled.

      If they could do it back then, I sure hope that they are able to do it today.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    8. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by Pharmboy · · Score: 0

      Umm, the US constitution doesn't apply to service personnel. If you want into the military you have to sign away all that in order to serve.

      Um, no that is not true. There are certain limitations to how you express those rights, but you still have rights. It is common to SAY you sign away your rights, but as someone who was in, (and son of a retiree) I am very aware of the exact limitations, which I spoke of.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

      Then there is that pesky 1st Amendment. I have personally been bounced from two "positions of public trust" for writing (off work topic and yes, I have learned my lesson) on the web.

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
    10. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by zill · · Score: 1

      ... and yes, I have learned my lesson...

      Evidently not ;)

    11. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by agentc0re · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      As a Marine Vet, I'd have to agree with the previous poster. You give up your rights when you sign to serve your country. You welcome the dictatorship over the democracy you swore to protect. You're rights are those given to you by your NCO's or CO's. The USAF is more like a glorified civilian anyways, so I guess you probably wouldn't understand.

      I agree with doing away with those stupid social networking sites while you are in. You get phone privileges and can call home while overseas. The only people that would be severally pissed off would be all the POG's and Fobits that abuse that shit daily while there. You probably wont catch many grunts willing to waste their fucking time on that shit, I guarantee that. From patrols to post duty, when you are afforded your time to sleep, you do that over playing on the internet.

      Semper Fi!
      Semper gumby!
      Kill'em all and let God sortem out!

      --
      Sometimes, the answer is to just destroy it all.
    12. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Loose lips sink ships...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That's called a false flag, I believe.

      Keep making them think something will happen. If nothing happens enough time, they stop paying quite so much attention.

      Then the wolves come to town, while the villagers ignore Peter's cries.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    14. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where there is freedom, there is repression

    15. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's called a false flag, I believe.

      That's not what "false flag" means.

      A false flag operation is one in which you try to make your forces look as though they belong to someone else. The term is naval in origin, stemming from your ships flying the flag of some other country.

      For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    16. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Aah, thanks for clearing that up.

      Is there a name for what I'm thinking of?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by RMH101 · · Score: 1

      Disinformation, or black propaganda.

    18. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by tarlss · · Score: 1

      Agreed,

      I wouldn't say that all military personel everywhere ever should be banned from social networking, but it makes perfect sense that active enlisted personel should not be allowed to post social network or blogs.

      Any nation with any kind of practical intelligence apparatus could easily run a crawl/search that analyzes FB status updates of enlisted personel and come up with a pretty good picture of what they're doing an where, complete with photos.

      I don't think this should be applied to off-duty and reservist personel unless they were activated. Honestly, it's not difficult to tell whether a reserve unit has been activated anyway (Pretty easy to tell when a good percentage of a population vanishes)- we shouldn't be infringing on more personal freedoms than necessary.

    19. Re:A Natural OPSEC Move by AnAdventurer · · Score: 1

      By "learned my lesson", I mean I don't do that kind of work anymore.

      --
      6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
  2. How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why is this posted as a YRO article, or even a slashdot story at all? I'm sure that not one of the millions of Chinese Army read slashdot.

    The fact is that military personnel whether its US or foreign operate under different rules than the rest of the population.

    This is not news for nerds, and it definitely doesn't matter to anybody.

    1. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by microbee · · Score: 3, Funny

      It violates your right to follow any blog opened by a Chinese soldier! We all know Chinese soldiers form the best army of bloggers, now they are all gone!

    2. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      China is taking up all of the West's manufacturing
      -> China is buying up all the West's debt
      -> China is going to own our sorry asses in a short time
      -> The West will have to do what the PRC's government says.
      -> Military service in China is compulsory
      -> China denies on-line rights to its soldiers.
      -> Your online rights will be infringed.

    3. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by jfz · · Score: 1

      It violates YRO because actions of one government often influences those of another. People rarely realize what they've lost until they have.

    4. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is this posted as a YRO article

      1. Because it is about removing Chinese soldier's rights to express themselves (or have any presence) on the internet. You can't get more "Your Rights Online" that that.

      2. Some of us believe that the right to free speech is not something that a government can give you. Governments can only act to suppress that right, they can't grant it to you because you were born with it. Even if they "take it away", you still have it, you just can't act on it.

      3. The fact that it is happening to people in China and not the US doesn't affect the newsworthy aspect. While /. is US-centric, there is no problem with discussing the violation of rights by people living in the UK, Australia, Germany, Moldova, China or Timbuktu.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, my uneducated guess would have been that hundreds of people from the Chinese military read Slashdot. What makes you think otherwise?

    6. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, where would we get the funny photos like this?

    7. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us believe that the right to free speech is not something that a government can give you.

      You are so wrong it is hilarious.

      I'd like to see "some of you" go to China and try to prance around with your free speech rights. More than likely you would just get your ass tossed out, but if you were Chinese good luck to you.

    8. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mention five countries and a city? Why not say Mali?

    9. Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some of us believe that the right to free speech is not something that a government can give you.

      You are so wrong it is hilarious.

      Um, no. Your misapprehension would be laughable if it weren't so tragically backwards.

      Some governments protect the right of free speech (such as, at least in theory, that of the US). Others (such as China's), attempt to suppress it. To imply that this right is "granted" by a government is in essence to deny the existence of the right itself.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  3. The request itself is suspicious. by urbanriot · · Score: 1

    If the Chinese government believes that foreign governments are monitoring the blogs or online activities of their active duty military personnel, perhaps they're engaging in this behaviour to monitor the military activities of other governments?

    1. Re:The request itself is suspicious. by cynyr · · Score: 1

      and we would have to be completely dense not to be doing the same.

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
    2. Re:The request itself is suspicious. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you ruling out the possibility that you are not completely dense already?

    3. Re:The request itself is suspicious. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Well, of course they are. And so are we. And so is everybody. Any military intel organization would have to be a fool not to be checking to see if useful information was left lying around in this fashion. In fact, if I were an intel officer, I'd be thinking about laying out disinformation through fake blogs.

    4. Re:The request itself is suspicious. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Exactly. ANd if we considered ourselves to be in a cold war with China, we would make the exact same request of our troops.

      What I find interesting is that Chinese leaders consider it more important to try and clamp down on information flow to the west, then sending disinformation. They really do consider us in a cold war with them.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:The request itself is suspicious. by boxwood · · Score: 1

      And they are correct. China is the emerging superpower while the US is the declining superpower.

      How did the US gain superpower status? By snatching up the colonies of declining empires (Spanish, and later British). China will do the same, so they want to pay attention to whats going on in the US empire.

  4. "USMC bans"... on its network. by couchslug · · Score: 1

    (Lee Ermey voice)

    "Private Pyle, what about "on its network" do you not understand?

    You had best square your ass away and start shitting me Tiffany cufflinks or I will definitely fuck you up!"

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:"USMC bans"... on its network. by shoehornjob · · Score: 0

      LMAO. Am I the only one that saw the headline as "China Bans Military Personnel From Flogging"

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  5. I wonder if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they also ban interviews with Rolling Stone?

  6. Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any word on when Joe Lieberman will use this as an excuse for us needing to do the same in the U.S.?

  7. USMC by allcaps · · Score: 3, Informative

    To clear any ambiguity, the USMC does not forbid Marines from using Facebook or any other social Networking site. They only disallow access on their own INTRAnet.

    "The ban ... only applies to Marine Corps networks and computers, allowing Marines to access the sites on their own computers or at Internet cafes." -tinyurl.com/nnymlj [cnn.com]

    1. Re:USMC by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sssh! Don't say that! It's all about moral equivalence! Every time somebody says something about China or other repressive governments, the very next breath will contain some example, no matter how contrived, about how we are exactly the same if not worse. Refer to 1960s-era arguments handwaving away the USSR's political oppression by referring to Senator McCarthy.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:USMC by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So is there no room in your universe for both to be wrong? And given the "they made that up" nature of the GP, are you insinuating that people today are making up stuff McCarthy did? 'Cause for the record, in reality, that was one evil dude.

    3. Re:USMC by Nebulo · · Score: 1

      Cannot judge! All cultures are the same! Cannot judge! How dare you!

      nebulo

    4. Re:USMC by gtall · · Score: 1

      One should develop a sense of proportion.

    5. Re:USMC by WNight · · Score: 1

      And they saying we are the same, or are aimed at the same point? Because if we act like them in any way but hand-wave it away as "just one little thing" it soon won't be.

      IMHO, to the degree we aren't like China, it's only because people react strongly and negatively to extending government power here.

      If we had to wait until every abuse was so egregious it actually bothered the unconcerned and (often intentionally) unaware we'd never get anything done.

  8. Not Surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    China is in a cold war with the west. The last thing they want is information leaking out. As it is, they make heavy us of spying in the west to come up with all sorts of offensive weapons that they can use. Sadly, the west is trying to be friends with China, but China is about to surprise everybody. The reality is, when you are the leader of the worlds largest nation (population wise), AND have a population that is about to be very heavily skewed towards males, what do you want next? The world. If nothing else, look at their military systems. Heck, look at their recent promise to allow the Yuan to 'float'. It floated for a day and then was restored. Then floated just a little bit downwards. Why? Because the TRUE leaders of CHina said NO.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because the TRUE leaders of CHina said NO.

      The Taiwanese had no say in it :)

    2. Re:Not Surprising by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There is no cold war any more unless you say there is one. China is just trying to maintain it's political system while engaging the rest of the world economically. This is similar to Saudi Arabia. Some Americans seem to be uncomfortable or hostile toward China because they think China has the potential to challenge the US militarily. But that's a short sighted view.

      Most people in China really do not understand the west at all from a philosophical perspective. I am not saying the west is good or bad, but there are indeed significant differences and they are quite obvious if people have the chance to see both. What's why the economical interactions between China and the west will eventually have a great impact on China and the rest of the world.

    3. Re:Not Surprising by royallthefourth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually it sounds like you're the one who is itching for a fight and projecting it onto a country you don't understand

    4. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of China's "cold war" appears to be on the economic end - in that they don't want to end up like the U.S.S.R..

      They're just now getting their infrastructure together. Do you really think they want to lose all of that (including 3 Gorges dam) to
      nuclear assault? What profit is there in attacking your biggest customer/market anyway?

      If I were the leader of China and watching my population skew towards males, I'd make sure they had plenty of
      infrastructure work to keep them occupied and cheap entertainment to keep them happy.

    5. Re:Not Surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Saudi Arabia allows a float on the money; they do not have many trade barriers; they do not dump. Comparing China to Saudi Arabia is a joke. THat is like comparing 1940 Germany to America or England. There really was no similarity.

      Right now, Chinese ppl are just fine. They want to live life and enjoy things. Chinese LEADERS are a whole other group. THey are looking to gain a lot more power.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Not Surprising by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      I was doing a high level comparison, that is economically open while politically closed. In this respect, they are very similar.

    7. Re:Not Surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I understand them fine. I have to deal with their spies. I watch that they fix their money to the dollar. I watch how they are undermining the west, and not obeying their treaties. Sadly, it is the many fools in the west that keep hoping that CHina is NOT up to a cold war that will prolong this nightmare.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    8. Re:Not Surprising by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      You...have to deal with their spies?

      Well uhhhh

    9. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Chinas economy is growing. The economy west is shrinking. It is inevitable that China will end up as world leader. They don't have to start a war to achieve this.

      The real danger is that the Americans start a nuclear war to try to avoid the inevitable.

    10. Re:Not Surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You missed the point. China is not economically open. They fix their money to ours; they have loads of trade barriers; They dump on western markets; they have massive theft in IP, weapons, etc. As to gov., China has a group of ppl that control and seek greater control not less. They are secretive about their military and their intentions. They are a totalitarian. Saudi Arabia is a kingdom. However, they are up front about what they want and represent. There is NOTHING similar between the two.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re:Not Surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      And YET, for a nation that does not want to start a way, they cheat at the economy. THAT has to stop. THey have a number of treaties that they made. THey need to obey them.

      THe funny thing is that I do not oppose their rise. However, I object to their doing it in a fashion that says that they must cheat at it.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:Not Surprising by Que914 · · Score: 1

      China has a group of ppl that control and seek greater control not less.

      So do we, we call them politicians.

    13. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They fix their money to ours

      The fixed exchange rate is used to stabilize currency in helping trade between partners. Hong Kong is one of the free-est in terms of economic freedom place in the world and it's pegged to US dollar for a long time. Fixed exchange rate does not imply non-open economy. There is a cost and downside to pegging exchange rate.

      It takes two to dance and like it or not Chinese is the 2nd biggest trading partner for US. I'd recommend not to buy ANYTHING made in China, including components. Try that.

      And somehow you feel that a monarchy is better than a totalitarian system. And do you want to know which country spend most on military, by far? I'm not sure if US government are open about their military and their intentions. Seriously modders, if this is interesting some of the opinions or facts has to be quantified. Other than the IP one, all the claims in the parent post are unsubstantiated.

    14. Re:Not Surprising by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, the fixed currency has NOTHING to do with helping trade between 'partners'. It is SOLELY about making imports cheap. As it is, they are REQUIRED by CLinton's accord as well as IMF to free their money. It should have been moving freely since 2003 (4?). That is why all large nations and increasingly a number of smaller countries are gripping. A number of economists say that it is undervalued by 40%. Increasingly, more are saying upwards of 100% undervalued. That is NOT about 'stabilization'. Only a fool or an out and out liar would make such a statement.

      I never said that a monarchy was better than a totalitarian system. Far from it. However, SA is far friendlier to their citizens than is the chinese leadership. Yes, America does spend more on the military. So what? This conversation was about CHINA, not about USA. And all of what I said is trivial to prove. Google it for yourself.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  9. not just blogging. going to internet cafe is no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    it's a much wider ban than not blogging.

    active service men and women cannot not go to internet cafe, apply for job online or go online dating etc.

    MoD China website (of course its in chinese) rules of internal affairs

    http://www.mod.gov.cn/policy/2010-06/07/content_4162971_25.htm

    well, don't know how strict it's goingt o be obeyed though. other rules include to have 8 hours' sleep everyday. don't think you get into trouble for a sleepless night :)

  10. Quote from "The Depaarted"... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1

    "Microchips... CPU's... We're going to probably be at war with China in twenty years and these things can put a ballistic missile up a camels ass from about 100 miles."

    I'm not saying this will happen, but when you're going to have hostilities with anyone, step one is cutting off communication. Or have I forgotten Sun Tzu?

  11. Really its a non issue by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    You do lose some ( ok, most ) freedoms while serving your country, and with the risks involved in 'blog activity' i don't really see a big deal with restricting it.

    Can blog all you want when you get home.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Really its a non issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >

      Can blog all you want when you get home.

      No. No, they can't. They cannot blog in any capacity.

  12. What if the Chi-Comms had done the opposite? by PatPending · · Score: 1

    Imagine if the Chi-Comms had mandated that all 2.4 million soldiers must blog--except that they must post miss-information and etc. originating from their propaganda ministry and covert ops--think of the burden it would have had on other nation's resources trying to monitor that!

    So, yeah, IFO am glad the Chi-Comms shut up.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
  13. Quick! Has Senator Liebermann heard this yet? by smchris · · Score: 1

    We have a censorhsip gap!!

  14. Perfect Sense by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

    Ok, I didn't expect to defend communist China today, but really this rule makes sense. Look at the way Amazon and Netflix have been sued in just the last six months for examples of the incredible wealth of sensitive information you can reconstruct from completely mundane and innocent data. Keeping troops off the internet entirely makes perfect sense from a security standpoint, although going that far isn't necessary and stomps on people's free speech way too much for my taste.

    Anyway, I know I wouldn't want anyone reconstructing the surfing and posting habits of my military members to spot troop movements, locations of certain projects, etc. That's not a far-fetched concern, either: in the cold war Blackbird and U-2 spy planes regularly counted the number of vehicles in parking lots, watched trains, etc. to figure out when big projects were underway and where major hardware was being shipped. It's not impossible to do similar things by tracking internet traffic.

  15. "The internet is complicated" by manicb · · Score: 1

    Best. Explanation. Ever.

    It can mean "too complicated for us to deal with" or "too complicated for us to explain this to your puny little mind".

    1. Re:"The internet is complicated" by Kittenman · · Score: 2, Funny

      I mean, really complicated. You think it's a long way down to the chemist to buy an aspirin but that's peanuts compared to space... oh sorry, got sidetracked there.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:"The internet is complicated" by PatPending · · Score: 1

      How can a series of tubes be complicated?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    3. Re:"The internet is complicated" by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      >>How can a series of tubes be complicated?

      Go and watch Brazil. (Movie, not country).

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
  16. Re: No Chinese Army reading of SlashDot... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure that not one of the millions of Chinese Army read slashdot.

    lolll...you're right! When it comes to reading slashdot (or leaving their footprints in my logs), those units of the People's Liberation Army that are working with the Ministry of State Security suddenly become "research institutes".

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  17. golly sergeant I did not know that the internet wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    golly sergeant I did not know that the internet was the network?

  18. I wonder if any of this by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 1

    has come to Canada

    1. Re:I wonder if any of this by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      I'd be very surprised if you can spend a billion dollars on security for a weekend summit without funding some data mining of chatter.

  19. China has banned all 2.3M members of its military. by stanlyb · · Score: 0

    Wow, 2.4M army? I wonder who would dare to attack such a big army!!!

  20. What about twitting? by bronney · · Score: 1

    Sina Weibo is hot :D.. ok no blogging, what about starting a web site on photography? Ok what about writing some product reviews?! Ok none of that, what about discussing WOW on forums? These rules are such faggotry on the net.

    Banning blogging isn't going to silence people, it'll make them louder, noobs.

  21. Um, I dunno about that by KriticKill · · Score: 1

    I'm in the army and no one has ever told me that I have to clear what I post with anyone. The exception would be when we deploy then they require everyone to submit their Facebook, Myspace, whatever, for constant scrutiny (understandable, I guess) during a deployment. Heck, my current unit actually encourages people to friend the unit FRG page (I don't and never will), and our sergeant major posts updates from his office.

  22. Facebook is blocked in China by Brain+Damaged+Bogan · · Score: 1

    there is no indication as to whether or not this applies to sites like Facebook or Renren

    noone in China has access to facebook, unless of course they VPN out or have remote access to a machine outside of China. I had to do this while on vacation there in order to use my Facebook and Twitter accounts. RenRen is monitored by the Chinese govt, so I don't see them having any trouble with this.

    --
    -- Sex is the antonym of pringles. Once you pop it's time to stop.