Sign up for PM Award Updates!
 
 

White House To Authorise Phone Companies Hold Call Data


US media reported White House moves to legally transfer responsibility for the storage of call data to telephone companies from the practice today, where it is collected and held by National Security Agency.
Under the proposed system, NSA can access data from the companies if required. Phone companies are authorised to hold records up to 18 months unlike now where NSA holds records it collects up to five years.

“Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns,” Associated Press (AP) reported President Barack Obama saying, Tuesday. The New York Timesfirst reported on the story, Monday.
Phone companies earlier balked at the proposal fearing they could be held liable if individuals sued them for providing data on NSA’s request. During discussions they insisted that legislation be put in place that allows them to transfer such data to the NSA upon request.
NSA’s bulk collection of phone data was revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden last year.
“Under the administration’s pending legislative proposal, officials would have to obtain phone records by getting individual orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Times report said. The new court orders would require companies to provide those records swiftly and to make available continuing data related to the order when new calls are placed or received,” AP said.
   
Please click hereto read the full story

What Makes Beijing Paranoid?

Paul Mooney (Pic Business Insider)



Veteran reporter Paul Mooney was denied a visa to enter China to work as a journalist by Beijing in November. He was getting ready to cover China as correspondent for Reuters. He was earlier correspondent for The South China Morning Post.
“China has been my career,” Mooney told the New York Times. “I never thought it was going to end this way. I’m sad and disappointed.”

Reuters said Mooney had had “spent three decades covering Asia, the last 18 years based in Beijing, said Saturday in a phone interview.”
  
Business Insider giving reasons for the visa denial said that when asked his views about sensitive issues such as the Dalai Lama, Tibet and Chen Guancheng, “He answered frankly but politely and told them that he didn’t see them as threats to the Chinese government. He told them he thought they were being paranoid.”
In an article to the winter 2014 edition of Nieman Reports, published at Harvard University, Mooney looks at the state of journalism in China 25 years after Tiananmen Square – in other words why the Chinese government is paranoid.
“Hundreds of thousands of websites from around the world are blocked inside China. Major social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, and LinkedIn, cannot be accessed, and advanced software is used to search and destroy “sensitive” words on the Internet,” says Mooney.
Please read the article here

New York Times, Bloomberg To Be Expelled From China

US VP Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping  (Washington Post)  


Two US-based media organisations – the New York Times and Bloomberg News – could be expelled from China with Beijing refusing to renew work visas of their journalists. Recent articles by both highlighted issues of corruption and nepotism among China’s elite.

Although in the past China has delayed or denied individual journalists visas this is the first time entire staff of the two institutions have been asked to leave.
“Twenty four foreign journalists working for the New York Times and Bloomberg could be forced to leave China in the coming weeks after officials stalled over renewing their visas,” said Malcolm Moore, in the UK Guardianwriting from Beijing.
This was confirmed by David Nakamura in the Washington Post. He said “Ian Johnson, a New York Times writer based in China, wrote on Twitter: ‘China is about to expel all NYT and Bloomberg correspondents from China – unprecedented. Biden raised issue with Xi.'”
The reference is to US Vice President Joe Biden who is in Beijing at the moment as part of an East Asian tour. He was expected to raise controversial issues such as China’s designation of a Air Defence Identification Zone over the disputed islands in the South China Sea, before the issue of the journalists’ expulsion surfaced.
The Post reported that Biden who met a group of mostly American journalists privately where he said he had brought up the matter with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
Biden also registered his displeasure about Chinese intimidation of journalists at a bilateral meeting a day earlier: “‘Innovation thrives where people breathe freely, speak freely, are able to challenge orthodoxy, where newspapers can report the truth without fear of consequences,’ Biden said during his remarks. ‘We have many disagreements, and some profound disagreements, on some of those issues right now, in the treatment of U.S. journalists. But I believe China will be stronger and more stable and more innovative if it respects universal human rights,” reported the Post.     
The move to deny journalists visas, appears to be in retaliation for articles published earlier by The Times and Bloomberg on financial corruption. Said Moore, “[a]n article last October exposing the secret £1.65 billion fortune of the family of the then prime minister, Wen Jiabao, enraged the Chinese government, which has since censored both the English and Chinese websites and denied journalist visas for two incoming staff.”
On November 17, the New York Times carried an article on Bloomberg’s chief editor, Matthew Winkler, killing a story by one of the organisation’s Hong Kong-based staffers Michael Forsythe who was also suspended for working on an investigative story on a Chinese billionaire. The Times said, “Winkler had decided to kill “an investigative article because of fears that Bloomberg would be expelled from China.” Please see this blog’s post here.
Meanwhile, this blogin a posting on November 13 titled ‘US Media Moghuls Helping China Export Repression?’ highlighted an article in The Atlantic titled ‘Legitimising the ‘Civilized Internet’: China’s Seduction of U.S. Media’ highlighted the journal discussing a meeting of the Presidium of the World Media Summit in October. The WMS is the brainchild of the Chinese Communist Party but has among the members of its top decision-making body a number of US media companies including The New York Times, Google, Associated Press, as well as the BBC, Al Jazeera and others.
The Atlantic suggests that one of the reasons these organisations are in the presidium is to improve the penetration of their media businesses into China. The New York Times, BBC, Google and CNN websites have been blocked on and off in China in the past and reporters from The Times and Al Jazeera not granted visas to enter the Chinese mainland.

Beijing Handtwists US Media To Suppress China News

Paramilitary officers at Tiannamen Square (Pic. courtesy WP)


China’s moves to control opinion overseas appears to have taken a step forward with the pliant chief editor at one of United States’ most prestigious news agencies killing a story that probed a Chinese billionaire followed by the suspension of the journalist who wrote it.

The New York Times said in its Sunday edition (Nov.17) that Michael Forsythe, a Hong Kong-based journalist for Bloomberg had been suspended after the organisation’s editor-in-chief Matthew Winkler had decided to kill “an investigative article because of fears that Bloomberg would be expelled from China.”
“Last week, after the allegations of self-censorship were published, reporters and editors in the Bloomberg bureau in Hong Kong who had worked on the unpublished article were called into a series of meetings, Bloomberg employees said,” reported The Times.
Norman Pearlstein who worked for Bloomberg News’ parent company Bloomberg LP had said he had “spoken Mr. Winkler and had heard that ‘the story was just not ready for publication and they’re still working on it,'” The Times continued.
The Times story went on to point out that following an expose by Bloomberg News last year about the present Chinese President Xi Jinping, subscriptions to the outlet’s terminals in China had fallen when government institutions had been ordered not to subscribe. Further, the Bloomberg website was blocked and its correspondents found it difficult to get residency visas in China.
Meanwhile, also on Sunday, Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post used the Forsythe saga and other incidents to point out Beijing’s systematic plan of controlling opinion abroad by using its power, wealth and prestige. Hiatt writes “Paul Mooney, a veteran Asia journalist for Reuters, recently was denied a visa, with no reason given, according to the agency. Knowledgeable China hands for Bloomberg News, the New York Times and The Washington Post have met similar fates.”
But journalists are not the only ones. Academics are too. Hiatt describes Beijing’s refusal of a visa to Princeton academic Perry Link because he had contributed a chapter on the Muslim Uyghur minority in China’s Xianjing. “[b]ecause China never explains its refusals or spells out what kind of scholarship is disqualifying, the result is a kind of self-censorship and narrowing of research topics that is damaging even if impossible to quantify,” said Hiatt.
Hiatt however says China only hurts itself by doing this because, among other reasons, its leaders who wish to see China as a self-confident nation has the country’s prestige undermined “by their apparent fear of honest scrutiny.”
This blogin a posting on November 13 titled ‘US Media Moghuls Helping China Export Repression?’ highlighted an article in The Atlantic titled ‘Legitimising the ‘Civilized Internet’: China’s Seduction of U.S. Media’ where the journal discusses a meeting of the Presidium of the World Media Summit in October. The WMS is the brainchild of the Chinese Communist Party but has among the members of its top decision-making body a number of US media companies including The New York Times, Google, Associated Press, as well as the BBC, Al Jazeera and others.
The Atlantic suggests that one of the reasons these organisations are in the presidium is to improve the penetration of their media businesses into China. The New York Times, BBC, Google and CNN websites have been blocked on and off in China in the past and reporters from The Times and Al Jazeera not granted visas to enter the Chinese mainland.

US Media Moghuls Helping China Export Repression?

Meeting of WMS’s Presidium, October 10 (Pic. The Atlantic)


In ‘Exporting Repression,’ posted in March on the blog of the New York-based think tank Freedom House, Daniel Calingaert speaks of countries governed by authoritarian regimes cooperating with each other to consolidate power over “discontent at home and international criticism.” Calingaert says opposition to the respect of human rights and democracy makes these unlikely allies collaborate.     
“This cooperation, which might be dubbed ‘authoritarian internationalism,’ presents a significant challenge to democracy around the world and has likely contributed to the decline in global freedom registered by Freedom House over the past seven years,” wrote Calingaert, who is Freedom House’s executive vice president.

He goes to speak about the Chinese model of “with its combination of rapid economic growth and political repression, presents an appealing policy model for other authoritarian regimes.” However, as challenges to this model of governance rise from within China as well as through liberal internationalism, Beijing is reacting by tutoring other authoritarian regimes which are fragile kleptocracies on the principles of sustainable authoritarian governance. The idea of course is that an international coalition of authoritarian states with a common global vision of strangling democracy would keep them in power.
Calingaert goes on to describe eight aspects of authoritarian internationalism: 1) Close ties between dictatorships, 2) Replicating worst practices, 3) Technology exports, 4) Security service collaboration, 5) Military intervention, 6) Challenging international norms, 7) Undermining international institutions and (8) Counter-organizations.
While all these are important, of particular significance to this blog are technology exports. On this Calingaert discusses China’s use of technology to censor content on the internet and how, “it has reportedly supplied telephone and internet surveillance technology to Iran and Ethiopiaand provided several Central Asian governments with telecommunications infrastructure that may increase their ability to spy on their own citizens.”
Another article on the subject titled ‘Authoritarian Black Market‘ by a Freedom House researcher Andrew Rizzardi also refers to Chinese export of telecommunication technology. Rizzardi goes on to say, “China’s improvements to a country’s telecommunications infrastructure are often accompanied by more advanced censorship and surveillance capabilities for the local government. “China is assisting Zambia with the installation of deep-packet inspection (DPI) technology that enables the government to monitor and potentially block social media and ‘unfriendly’ websites,” says Rizzardi to illustrate of the operation of the authoritarian black market.
The importance Beijing places on technology to censor content on the internet shows only too clearly the importance of state propaganda and the role authoritarian regimes, be it China, Venezuela, Iran or Zambia assign on controlling the information reaching their citizens and the international community.
Seen in this light, an article that appeared in the October 31 issue of The Atlantic is food for thought. Titled, ‘Legitimising the ‘Civilized Internet’: China’s Seduction of U.S. Media’ it discusses a meeting of the presidium of the World Media Summit (WMS) held in Hangzhou on October 10, sponsored hosted by the Chinese state news agency Xinhua. WMS is the brainchild of a former Chinese deputy propaganda minister and present chairman of Xinhua, Li Congjun. What is significant is that the presidium is the decision-making body of the WMS and that among the attendees at the meeting were representatives of top US media organisations – “Google, The Associated Press, News Corporation, NBC News, The New York Times Company and Turner Broadcasting System. Other participants included Reuters, BBC, Al-Jazeera…” In the presidium is also Kasturi & Sons, publishers of the India’s English daily, The Hindu.
The Atlantic goes on to point out the dangers of these media organisations attending the meeting without mincing words: “Whether they were aware of it or not, these highly influential media brands were lending credibility to an opaque organization that the Chinese government created expressly to further its global propaganda goals. Moreover, their meeting took place while China is escalating its crackdown on online speech and investigative journalism. For these reasons, it is perhaps unsurprising that this event has received no attention in the Western press.”
The article goes to describe the thinking behind the Chinese leadership on using media as a source of soft power, and the sophistication needed for information control. It quotes David Bandurski of the University of Hong Kong’s China Media Project, “‘One of the best ways to legitimize censorship is to make it look voluntary. This is why China has sought in recent years to push censorship and control through what look like voluntary professional organizations, which then make self-discipline pledges, come out with resolutions mirroring official policy…'”
The Atlantic suggests that one of the reasons these organisations are in the presidium is to improve the penetration of their media businesses into China. The New York Times, BBC, Google and CNN websites have been blocked on and off in China in the past and reporters from The Times and Al Jazeera not granted visas to enter the Chinese mainland.
“‘I can understand the interest in engaging with China, which is a major potential market for these media organizations,’ says China Media Project’s Bandurski. ‘But I question the decision to become governing members of an ostensibly non-government organization that is clearly associated very closely with the Chinese leadership. If this is indeed an independent organization, then the members should be able to explain to us publicly how its governance works and how it is financed.'”
The Atlantic adds, “There is no evidence suggesting that the WMS presidium meeting in Hangzhou has altered coverage of China by publications belonging to any of the presidium’s non-Xinhua members. However, the growing profile of the WMS does raise significant questions: What is this organization’s agenda? And whose agenda is it?”
The questions become more all the more relevant because the World Media Summit’s next general meeting will be hosted by The New York Times, while Al-Jazeera will do the honours in 2016. For China, a country that is accused of sponsoring international authoritarianism that’s no mean achievement.