Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Social Networks The Internet The Military Your Rights Online

China Bans Military Personnel From Blogging 82

Posted by kdawson from the online-traps dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Bans Military Personnel From Blogging More

China Bans Military Personnel From Blogging

Comments Filter:

  • A Natural OPSEC Move (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cmholm ( 69081 ) <cmholm&mauiholm,org> on Sunday June 27, 2010 @01:55PM (#32710304) Homepage Journal

    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 [michaelyon-online.com] of information on the situation in Afghanistan.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Pharmboy ( 216950 )

      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 i

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cmholm ( 69081 )

        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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

          • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

            by agentc0re ( 1406685 )

            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

      • Loose lips sink ships...

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 )

      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

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        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 t

        • 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 [wikipedia.org]

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

        • 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.

    • 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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by tarlss ( 627609 )

      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 rese

  • How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • Re:How Does this Affect My Rights Online??! (Score:4, Funny)

      by microbee ( 682094 ) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @02:18PM (#32710400)

      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!

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jfz ( 917930 )
      It violates YRO because actions of one government often influences those of another. People rarely realize what they've lost until they have.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pharmboy ( 216950 )

      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 h

    • 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".

  • 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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cynyr ( 703126 )
      and we would have to be completely dense not to be doing the same.

    • 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.

      • 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.

        • 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.

  • (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!"

  • Here we go again... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

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

  • USMC (Score:3, Informative)

    by allcaps ( 1617499 ) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @02:23PM (#32710424)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 ) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @02:29PM (#32710444) Homepage
      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

        by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @02:53PM (#32710554) Homepage Journal

        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.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Nebulo ( 29412 )

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

        nebulo

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by WNight ( 23683 )

        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.

  • Not Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @02:32PM (#32710450) Journal
    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: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because the TRUE leaders of CHina said NO.

      The Taiwanese had no say in it :)

    • Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thoughtsatthemoment ( 1687848 ) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @04:12PM (#32711030) Journal

      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.

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

          • Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Interesting)

            by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday June 28, 2010 @05:04AM (#32714642) Journal
            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: (Score:1)

              by Que914 ( 1042204 )

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

              So do we, we call them politicians.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by royallthefourth ( 1564389 )

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

      • 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.

  • not just blogging. going to internet cafe is no no (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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 :)

  • "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?

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 wan

  • 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".

  • has come to Canada
    • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close