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."

Comments

A Natural OPSEC Move

[cmholm]

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.

Re:A Natural OPSEC Move

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re:A Natural OPSEC Move

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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.

Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??!

[microbee]

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!

USMC

[allcaps]

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]

Re:USMC

[DNS-and-BIND]

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.

Re:USMC

[KingSkippus]

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.

Not Surprising

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Not Surprising

[thoughtsatthemoment]

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.

Re:Not Surprising

[royallthefourth]

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

Re:Not Surprising

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Not Surprising

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??!

[Pharmboy]

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.

Re: No Chinese Army reading of SlashDot...

[ibsteve2u]

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".

Re:"The internet is complicated"

[Kittenman]

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.

Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??!

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.