Denlinger: “China is Governing the Internet Industry the Wrong Way”

In China, the police never call the Internet “the Internet”. They call it, in “superior socialism-speak”, the “public information networks” (公共信息网络). Yes, there is a Chinese word for Internet (hu lian wang, 互联网) but it’s still “new”, even after the National People’s Congress (the Chinese version of Congress) made a long, officialspeak-filled “decision” just about ten years ago, something that became the “granddaddy Chinese Internet law”.

This being the case, then, the Web is something new. And that can mean that, as you’re just wading in the Web waters, you’re likely to botch up, regulatory-wise or other. The Chinese government, then, must be pretty busy managing — or mis-managing, rather — the Chinese Interwebs.

In a recent article published on Forbes, Paul Denlinger (@pdenlinger), one of the most insightful tweeps in the Chinese Twittersphere, correctly argues that while the West sees China as being efficient (in some aspects), that kind of efficiency (which to your Swiss blogger any Swiss should be able to outdo) isn’t being shown on the Internet. In control of the Chinese Interwebs are, at the very least:

• the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology

• the Ministry of Culture
• the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television
• the Ministry of Finance
• the Ministry of Public Security
• the Ministry of State Security (that’s why the dissidents get jailed: “breaches of State security”)

and that’s just a few in the lot. As Denlinger says:

Here lies the problem: Every Internet owner and operator has to deal with multiple Chinese government ministries and make sure that he is in conformity with ALL regulations. Violations with just one ministry can kill an operation, as happened when Netease launched World of Warcraft in September last year.

Denlinger further argues:

From a business perspective, this unclear mishmash of regulatory bodies creates delays and inefficiency and, at worst, opportunities for corruption.

These political and bureaucratic turf wars for Internet companies are much worse than in many other industries because it’s a new industry. So why didn’t the government just set up a new Ministry for Internet and Mobile Media? This would have provided the benefit of the operators having to deal with only one ministry for most affairs. The closer the government can come to making ministries and relevant offices a one-stop shop for an operator to go to resolve issues, the better.

Denlinger’s article, despite being titled as some kind of “criticism”, is not the usual same-old-same-old “Westerner anti-Chinese-government” article. Instead of calling for ideological conflict, Denlinger, for a change, argues that the trouble with China in this day and age is that there’s the lack of anyone who’s a clear leader and who will champion the Internet.

In the same veins, news articles in the past months have made sketchy references to a possible PRC Internet Management Law. It’s not sure if a new “Internet ministry” will be responsible, or if the law will, in the same “same-old-same-old” fashion, assign a smorgasbord of mandarins responsible for Chinese cyberspace.

Real-Name System for Online Shops: “A Must?”

The city of Tianjin, a 30-minute ride away by high speed train from the Chinese capital, is often known as a down-to-earth city where its locals discredit attempts to “look official”. Yet the Jin Wanbao (今晚报), the evening newspaper of the city, seems to take on a more officialesque tone — when it comes to things in cyberspace.

Page 5 of the June 10, 2010 edition convinces readers with a huge headline that the real-name, real-ID system for online shops, slated to be in effect as of July 1, 2010, is a “must”, despite acknowledging that the measures have created a fair bit of controversy. Three big issues were singled out: Do e-shopkeepers have to pay tax? How safer will online shopping get? And are there any “discounts” for taxes in a “new industry”?

There is an increasing number of university students who basically make a living by selling online. In cyberspace, setting up shop requires far less red tape and even less hassle when it comes to securing a storefront, explaining why e-commerce is big. Trouble is, there’s a lot of uncertainty on whether or not taxes will start kicking into effect with the new regulations. Any cent collected will mean more expenses on the side of the e-shopkeeper, making a storefront in cyberspace less attractive (even if by a cent).

Although it’s sure that cases of customers being cheated on are expected to fall with the new rules in force, there’s still another bit of uncertain head-scratching — and that’s when it comes to, once again, taxation. It’s hoped that these e-shops will get taxed less or stay untaxed altogether, given their meteoritic rise as of late, plus the fact that e-shops are still very new to China.

Chinese cyberspace seems to be less and less of the uncensored wilderness that the Interwebs started out with. Still, if you think of the Web as being a digital extension to your real lives, that’s when the linkage with your real ID might start making sense…

Uni Exams: No E-Cheating Allowed!

It’s the exam season, once again. With the National University Examinations in China taking place these days, the Ministry of Education’s really serious about anyone using the Interwebs to cheat.

A bit of heavy-handed officialspeak: the official People’s Daily, in a June 6, 2010 article, threatened those who cheat with a record on their credit report. If you cheat, you’re it. There’ll also be a full crackdown, both on the Web, and via short message services, of anyone who will e-cheat.

Cheating in exams in China is taking on more and more FBI-esque approaches, it seems. Cheat notes, both written and even digital (such as wireless “stick-on-your-ears” receivers), are not new, and they’re caught, year in, year out. The fact that there’s only space for 9.57 million in universities this year (that’s 650,000 less than on offer last year) in a nation of 1.3 billion has prompted many to be “creative” about getting into university, very much the only way out for many a child — especially those of poor rural farmers. The English language is at a loss to describe the inhumane pressure exerted upon many a candidate in the months and even years leading up to the exams. Fat boys have underwent forced slimming — and if Chinese universities are full of students with glasses (often indicative of a “good student”), that’s a sign that they’ve spent more than enough time preparing for the exams (preparations go into the wee hours, day in, day out).

Real IDs Needed For Online Shops in China As Of July 1, 2010

Yet another case of the online world meeting offline red tape.

With effect from July 1, 2010, the Chinese State Administration for Industry and Commerce has decided that its Temporary Management Regulations on Internet Product Trade and Related Service Guidelines (《网络商品交易及有关服务行为管理暂行办法》) will kick into effect.

The incredibly long worded temporary bill will, in effect, link every online seller in China with an ID in the “real world”. This means that behind every seller will be an actual, living human being.

The new bill is seen as somewhat annoying but less of having a chilling impact (unless your scope of sales is illegal, whereupon the authorities will be more than pleased to “harmonize” you), but is seen as yet another case of red tape touching digital territory. If you sell things without a license, you’re in for a fine to the tune of CNY 10,000 — 30,000.

Still, here’s another thing to keep in mind: the new bill does not make business licenses mandatory. Nevertheless, that’s the only good news. The rest are more bureaucratese: you’ll need to keep sales records for at least two years, and in three years’ time, a full, national, interlinked commerce management system will be in place.

Official People’s Daily: We Need Differing Points of Views

The word “democracy” and “freedom of speech” (especially when applied to China) are now so charged that although they’re part of the PRC’s constitution, the Web inside PRC borders are anything but. We’ve seen it all: all-you-can-take censorship, with Twitter, Facebook and even the Scobleizer and — get this — I Can Haz Cheezeburger blocked.

So it’s a bit surprising, then, when the May 25, 2010 of the predictably official mouthpiece paper, the People’s Daily, published in its Page 4 “People’s Forum” column, this bit from Yuan Minjie about allowing differing points of views. It’s basically an endorsement of plurality as seen in democracies — but the two characters for “democracy” (民主) are totally absent from the column. That’s right. The D-word is pretty much in Charged Lingo Territory.

Bits and bobs from the article (surprisingly not in 100% officialspeak):

• As of late there’s been cases where different voices have been blocked (especially on the Web): this is not a usual phenomenon.

• It’s impossible to let everyone have exactly the same points of views on any one matter. In a pluralistic society, we have to respect different ideas, voices, and views. The citizenry must be allowed to use its freedom of speech. [Ed: this slipped in: "freedom of speech".]
• Those in government (especially leaders) must allow different points of views to exist; this is especially needed if we’re to achieve an objective view of a situation.
• If all that’s accepted is “good news” or “good views” (or if they’re blown out of proportions), that’s dangerous as those in government could lose track and be used.
• What’s happening in some places — the total lack of tolerance in regards to different points of views to the extent that those who dare express them are convicted of random offences and are arrested — is extremely wrong. This has a bad impact on the relations between the government and the party.
• You are allowed to not agree with someone else’s points of views, but you’re supposed to respect the rights of others to express themselves freely.

Your tech blogger has to say: this is amongst one of the most libre commentaries as of late. Especially when you take into account that this appeared in the top communist party mouthpiece. Printed black on white. Distributed to the whole readership base. The nation over.

While not being overly optimistic, let’s just hope that this has an un-chilling effect on Web rhetoric… it’s been getting pretty narrow on the Interwebs as of late…

China Announces New Rules For Online Maps

@1rick draws your tech blogger’s attention to some more mapped Mandarinese coming out from the People’s Republic’s State Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. Apparently, some online maps are considered “detrimental to the country’s national security”. (Most likely, maps cutting off Taiwan, or showing the two sides of the straits in über-different colours, are getting Beijing more than a little upset.)

Here’s what’s required of maps, according to the article on TheNextWeb (from ReadWriteWeb quoting Xinhua):

To be in accordance with the new standards, any map must be hosted within the confines of the country, on a server that has no history of security breaches within the past 3 years. The rest of this year will be spent weeding out content that doesn’t adhere to these rules.

Your tech blogger also happens to be super geek in the Subways, but it’s likely that quick maps around the station won’t set off too many alarms — as long as there are, say, no military camps around this-or-that exit. If it’s a map of a closed station with a trillion sensitive locations and they’re all marked, then — needless to say — he’ll be in a bit of trouble.

(But frankly, with the Daxing extension to Line 4 set to open this autumn all connected to commercial establishments, it’s more commercialesque than even.)

Best estimates give the number of map sites on the Chinese Interwebs at around 42,000. There are big players — MapBar, Map123, Baidu and, of course, Google. As we’re seeing more map sites in China, we’re also seeing a more active government trying to stomp out content that’s not supposed to be spread out in the first place.

By the way, on iPhones, the map and the satellite images are off by a fair bit — and even your location’s a bit “out of focus”. We guess it’s just part of the great plan!

Internet “Fully Restored” in Xinjiang. Oh Really?

After those riots that shook in particular Ürumqi in northwestern China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region, it looks like the Web as-is is finally coming back… of course with the blocks still in place. It’s going to be unlikely that Facebook and Twitter will be made available there again (for quite a while). The Asian Correspondent reports that the Web is now finally “fully” back.

Here’s a bit of politspeak to go along…

“For the stability, economic development and the needs of people from all ethnic backgrounds of the autonomous region, the Communist Party and the government of Xinjiang decided to fully resume Internet services beginning May 14,” the news office of the Xinjiang government said in a statement posted on a government website.

Behind the politspeak was more than the goal of “preserving social stability”. This came at a big price:

The severing of Internet connections in Xinjiang was more than just an inconvenience. Businesses who trade throughout Central Asia were forced to use faxes or send staff into neighboring provinces to access e-mail, while scientists found themselves shut off from research partners elsewhere. Many ordinary people relied on friends and family elsewhere in China to download their e-mails and pass the information on to them.

While Facebook and Twitter remains blocked nationwide, some sites slip out of the wall’s cracks, so to speak. Flickr, for example, is blocked in parts of Beijing but is fully OK in Shanghai, where your tech blogger’s based for about the next five days.

By the way, there was acknowledgement that Facebook, amongst others, remain “harmonized” — Xinjiang included:

At the China International Electronic Commerce Center in the regional capital Urumqi, a woman who refused to give her name, confirmed Friday that YouTube and Facebook were blocked in Xinjiang.

This ain’t good…

PRC’s Secrecy Law Modification Raises Some Eyebrows

The modification of a 1988 law on state secrets, coming just about a year before the events that occurred a year later, made it an offence to release “state secrets”. Its modification in late April this year (April 29, 2010) added a provision about the spreading of secrets on the Internet, sparking debate.

Interestingly enough, your blogger noted a government poster in the Taipei Railway Station just a day before leaving Taiwan in late January 2010. The poster warned citizens that “the Web knows no boundaries” (網際網路無國界) and warned folks that secrets may be spread via the Web (慎防機密由此洩).

The PRC has made it clear, as Article 3 of the article states, that state secrets are to be protected by law, and that all governments, military organizations, political parties, civil organizations, public organizations, companies and citizens are liable under law to protect secrets.

第三条　国家秘密受法律保护。[...] 一切国家机关、武装力量、政党、社会团体、企业事业单位和公民都有保守国家秘密的义务。

There’s been a lot of guesswork as to what state secrets might be. While PRC law is notoriously vague on some aspects, Article 9 in Chapter 2 gives a hint. By law, anything that touches these aspects involving national security, which, if leaked, might have harmful consequences politically, economically, or when it comes to defence and diplomacy, are state secrets…

• secrets in major government decisions;

• secrets in national defence and military activities;
• secrets involving diplomacy and diplomatic activities, as well as secrets so promised to foreign parties;
• secrets in the national economy and social development;
• secrets in the sciences and technology;
• secrets in protecting national security and chasing after criminal offenders

as well as the elastic phrase: “secrets as so defined by the national secrets government organization”. With a fair bit of controversy, secret items that belong to political parties that fall into the criteria as stated above are also treated as state secrets.

There have been cases when orders not report a certain news item, once released, have become offences involving state secrets. Certain items, in particular involving those who hold ‘non-mainstream’ views, are also touching on that sensitive ’state secrets’ nerve.

The controversial Article 28 places a burden on the Internet and, in particular, “operators and service providers” on the Web. (It’s uncertain if ISPs, ICPs, or both, will be hit.) Here it is in Chinese:

第二十八条: 互联网及其他公共信息网络运营商、服务商应当配合公安机关、国家安全机关、检察机关对泄密案件进行调查；发现利用互联网及其他公共信息网络发布的信息涉及泄露国家秘密的，应当立即停止传输，保存有关记录，向公安机关、国家安全机关或者保密行政管理部门报告；应当根据公安机关、国家安全机关或者保密行政管理部门的要求，删除涉及泄露国家秘密的信息。

It basically says that:

• operators of the Web (and other “public information networks”) are to co-operate with the police and national security government organs, as well as the ‘procuratorates’, when it comes to cases involving state secrets;

• transmissions involving state secrets on the Web shall immediately be stopped and records to be kept in order to report the case to the police, national security government organs, or the government organ responsible for state secrets;
• such secrets (caught in transmission) shall be deleted when requested by the government.

Those interviewed by a Voice of America article have criticized the legal revisions and, indeed, question of the law, now amended, goes against the PRC’s own constitution. Still, on the other hand, the modified law, passed with 144 yeas, 3 nays and 3 abstains, is here, according to an official the PRC’s state secrets governing body, because of changes both domestically and internationally, in particular to problems arising due to increased IT development, as well as the uninterrupted development of the democratic and law-based systems.

The case of Shi Tao have served as precedents and those who know about the case are not optimistic about the law. In the case, Shi passed on sensitive information later regarded as a state secret and the PRC government had Yahoo! release particulars leading to Shi’s arrest, conviction and an eventual sentence (10 years for spreading state secrets). It’s therefore regarded as yet another case of the chilling effect on the Chinese Interwebs.

New and… Useful? .zhongguo

Sometimes news rolling in can have two dramatically different twists to the tale. CNNIC, being China’s official network info centre (and indeed, the “domain censor”), recently secured the OK from the ICANN when it came to the new TLD (top-level domain) .zhongguo — in essence, “China” but in pinyinese. (The all-characters variant, .中国, was already in place.

The Shanghaiist derided it as useless. This blog somehow agrees. When Deng Xiaoping was in office, China gave birth to — yep — the short-lived lingo your blogger likes to think of as pinyinese. It was a big thing — with boxes of cosmetics dedicating part of their packaging to an all-out product description in pinyin romanization — neither English nor Chinese characters. It looked like this: Pinyin hua jiushi zheme xiezhe de… that’s right: can you read that?

One wonders if anyone would want to type in shanghaishibohui.zhongguo (in essence Shanghai World Expo.China in English or 上海世博会.中国 in Chinese) when expo2010.cn is much shorter…

Oh crap, that didn’t work…