The Summation of Thought

"Will Big Brother ever die?"

"Of course not. How could he die? Next question."

Orwell, 1984

Thus Far
In a grouping of posts centered around China's Personal Ministry of Truth, I have recorded my findings and thoughts in comparing China's digital age to the dark world created by Orwell in his novel 1984. Thoughtcrime on the Internet deals primarily with the Chinese government's uncanny ability to censor, restrict, ban, and monitor online activity. Even a whiff of dissidence to the government or party leaders will cause a reaction from authorities. From blocking an unsatisfactory blog to threats, harassment, abductions, and terms in prison, China maintains maintains totalitarian control both on and off-line. This uncompromising hold on information can hardly escape comparison to thoughtcrime, thought criminals, and the Thought Police of Orwell's novel. Individual thought in China is becoming more contraband every day.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH discusses China's talent of not only restricting and monitoring Internet usage, but to infuse it with thickly spread propaganda. Gearing up paid officials to enter the digital world and, as "normal" citizens, praise the government actions and policies to high heavens, China has ensured that their blogosphere, as well as physical sphere, remain safely red.

My Thoughts on China's Status
As I began researching the connections between China and 1984, I honestly thought I would find the Internet to be a source of liberating avenues; I had assumed that digital revolutions and online worlds could escape the restrictions placed on the physical body of China and lead to freedoms long unrealized. The Internet can be so secretive, so ambiguous, naturally I thought it's role would distance China from 1984's world of constant surveillance and fear, giving its citizens the escape needed to organize and potentially instigate change. Surely China can't go on forever in this state--the people will escalate and rebel at some point. I thought perhaps the Internet would be the tool to facilitate change. Well, nothing pops your bubble like thorough research.

The Internet: Use It and Lose It
As my previous posts have already established, China hasn't missed a step as the government straddles both the physical and virtual worlds. Another sphere is under communist control; the Internet has become an marionette, it seems, which obediently bends to the official hands tugging at its strings. The Internet is saturated with cyber-police, which easily bring punishment in the physical sense to those "crimes" committed on a virtual level. There is no safety, no anonymity online. There is no chance for change without the quick backlash from government power.

The government is quick to shut down anything that poses a threat. While many blogs and sites are scrutinized against government policies, the real danger comes when online gatherings pour into the physical world. China fears opposition, China fears masses of people united and gathered. Any hint of a riot throws China into a frenzy. These threats may usually be stopped, however, before the fear actually materializes. As mentioned in Virtual Memory Suppressed, China wasted no time in shutting down a virtual gathering to commemorate the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

A few individuals traveled to Tiananmen Square only to report on their Foursquare account their location and time. A few more followed, and a few more. There was no physical gathering to attract attention, just mute participation before leaving the cite just as quickly. Even a gathering of such minute proportions did not sit well with the government who, after catching on to the virtual gathering underway, blocked the site before the end of the day.

This instance only involved the blocking of one site; other behavior leads the government to block the Internet entirely. Returning again to those sentiments expressed in An Endless Battle?, the Chinese government banned the Internet for a span of 10-months following a riot in a Western province. The riot, which began as a protest against the government to investigate earlier conflicts between the different racial groups in China's Western provinces, culminated in the death of 156 people, with many others wounded. The government blamed an ethnic group for orchestrating the protest, via Internet, and as punishment banned the Internet for a span of 10-months.

This instance, more than any other, help demonstrate the extreme power the government holds over the Internet. Right now, it still proves a veritable tool which lends itself to government surveillance and exploitation. If the day arrives, however, that online dissidents gain too much power or pose a real threat to China's governing party, the Internet may just as easily disappear. Almost like a parent could simply remove the toy that causes too much noise or distraction or breaks some household lamp, China has the power to preserve itself at cost of unplugging entirely.

My Summation of Thought
1984 has arrived because of, not in spite of, the digital age. In power now is a government which can tap into nearly every method of life. The Internet is controlled, limited, monitored. In a delicate balance of risks and advantages, the government will exploit it and abuse it so long as it serves a purpose. There is little chance for rebellion without detection, little space to voice independent thought, and little hope to change. It seems the China has played its cards well. Thank you for your insight, Mr. Orwell.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.
George Orwell, 1984. Slogan of the Party.

I have been researching the Chinese government's use of technology. In earlier posts, specifically China's Personal Ministry of Truth, I have examined the government's Internet censorship protocol as well as other restrictions placed to limit the freedoms of the digital world. I have repeatedly turned to the Orwell's novel 1984 to examine the sympathies binding China's restricting policies to the dark future dominated by Orwell's Big Brother and the Thought Police. Thoughtcrime on the Internet concentrates on China's efforts to ban unsatisfactory ideas while counteracting those who would threaten complaint in the public sector; the focus thus far has been methods to keep the bad out. China, however, is clever enough to recognize an exploitable tool when it sees one. The Internet, as used by the Chinese government, it not simply an ambiguous world in need of censorship; it is a tool which writes history and dictates the present.

The Cultural Revolution and Little Red Book
China is no novice in the art of propaganda. In fact, one may say they wrote the book on it. In 1966 Mao Zedong was the chairman of Communist party in China. Disgusted with old ideologies and believing the past to be corrupting the possibilities for a purely Marxist future, Mao's regime authorized the Cultural Revolution spanning from 1966 until, arguably, Mao's death in 1976. this revolution was a radically destructive era. This revolution annihilated China's religious, dynastic, and historical legacy; with disregard and disinterest, Mao encouraged the systematic destruction of monasteries, literature, landmarks, temples--anything which might recall old thoughts or old ideals. Slaughtering thousands in the process and driving more to humiliation and suicide, Mao's regime smothered the people in the present ideologies and removed all traces of the past.

Having eliminated all unsatisfactory influences from the presence of his people, Mao set his sights to the molding of their psyche. As mentioned in The Past. The Future? Mao also instigated the Little Red Book, a small compilation of the teachings and ideologies of Chairman Mao. As unwritten law, citizens were obliged to carry the book at all times, turning to its pages throughout the day to dominate their minds with the words of their leader. The Little Red Book allowed Mao the power he sought: he controlled the past by elimination, the present by indoctrination. What worries could there be for the future?

New advancements on the technological front have done little to sway China from their propaganda prominence. While Mao effectively controlled China's mindset through the printed medium, the Communist government is applying new tools to old tricks as they continue to manipulate the minds of the masses through their use of technological propaganda.

A Government-Infused Medium

Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past.

China still maintains a firm grip on the past. Massacres such as that at Tiananmen Square never occurred, as testified by historical documents and Internet sources. The effort to ban such topics, arguably, fall within the realm of censorship. Beyond these efforts, however, rests a more active effort to distort the public understanding, reaction, and opinion of current events and governmental measures. The Chinese government employs others to puppet the minds of citizens online, swaying opinion towards government favor. From the New York Times, the article China's Censors Tackle and Trip Over the Internet attacks directly the government's efforts to brainwash the masses via government proxy:

Another strategy is manipulation. In recent years, local and provincial officials have hired armies of low-paid commentators to monitor blogs and chat rooms for sensitive issues, then spin online comment in the government’s favor.

Mr. Xiao of Berkeley cites one example: Jiaozuo, a city southwest of Beijing, deployed 35 Internet commentators and 120 police officers to defuse online attacks on the local police after a traffic dispute. By flooding chat rooms with pro-police comments, the team turned the tone of online comment from negative to positive in just 20 minutes.

According to one official newspaper editor who refused to be named, propaganda authorities now calculate that confronted with a public controversy, local officials have a window of about two hours to block information and flood the Web with their own line before the reaction of citizens is beyond control.

China is willing to don as many masks as necessary, it seems, to maintain the control and power it enjoys. Taking lessons from Mao himself, technology has only aided the Communist party as it employs savvy methods to disrupt the memory of the past as well as the present. It seems, again, as if Orwell was right on mark. One of the foremost slogans of the Party, the governing power in Orwell's futuristic London, is the phrase IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. There is great power for the ruler of the ignorant. By maintaining ignorance to the past, ignorance to the true present, ignorance to identity, ignorance to potential, maintaining IGNORANCE itself, the threat for rebellion almost disappears entirely.

A Response from the Expert and Thoughts on the Telescreen

Continuing with my study of the use of new media in China, I recently received an e-mail from an expert of on the subject. I have been looking specifically at Orwell's text 1984, and analysing whether technological advancements, such as the Internet and digital forms of communication, push the Chinese government towards the totalitarian world of Big Brother, or if these advancements prevent such a transformation from ever occurring. As I mentioned in my earlier post Questions for the Expert, I sent an e-mail to John Tkacik Jr. whose article "China's Orwellian Internet" has already been influential to my research. This afternoon, he was kind enough to respond:

Allison --- The emergence of IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) as the standard internet language for China will make it far easier for the state to identify specific IP addresses on specific machines – making it far easier to identify the precise machine that any communication comes from, and far simpler to cache all messages to/from that machine. So, I’m afraid China’s internet is now less of an instrument of free expression and more of an instrument of state repression . . . but it can be used by the regime to induce State-approved thinking. . .

You may also be interested in “Trojan Dragon” which Heritage published in early 2008. . .

John

I was very grateful for the time he took to respond, and more so for the suggestions he offered. I spent a little time looking into IPv6, and while comprehension of the cogs which run the Internet-machine are not my speciality, Mr. Tkacik's brief summary of its larger uses help illustrate the danger. The Chinese government, it seems, is finding increasing power with every technological advancement, and not vice versa.

While the Chinese government has already proven its ability to track and find cyber-dissidents, this particular advancement will make the process quicker and more efficient. Which leaves more time for the judicial process to take over.

At the risk of changing the subject entirely, Mr. Tkacik's e-mail has started my mind in an interesting direction. In 1984, the governing body, INGSOC, is a glutton for surveillance. In every pubic arena, facility, bar, institution, and home is found a telescreen, a device which is part television, part security camera. The telescreen is always on; only the most elite members of the government Party have the power to turn it off. All day it emits news, reports, ration alerts, war updates--anything to spew Big Brother's propaganda. As it sends propaganda out, the telescreen also takes a great deal in: anything within sight and hearing is recorded and may be scrutinized--at any time--by the Thought Police. Perhaps the phrase BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU is familiar. Well, as Orwell writes, he is watching. Though the telescreens he sees everything.


Returning again to China, their implementation of IPv6 is a more refined process of linking online identities to physical persons. The distance between the government and the individual is becoming thinner and thinner as technology develops. How much longer before the Chinese government--or any organization--can work the same magic as Big Brother's telescreen? With webcams and microphones automatically built into most computers, how big of a jump is it to recreate Orwell's methods of surveillance?

I'm starting to think more and more that Big Brother's telescreen was not an immediate process. I have a difficult time imagining technology of this caliber appearing overnight in the homes of the masses. Perhaps it was merely the slow transformation of technological tools already in wide use. We've come to rely so heavily on our media; televisions, computers, scattered throughout every home. The technology is already in place, it seems. There only waits for a government to utilize the tools already available. Orwell wrote the book on totalitarian surveillance, and it appears China is reading it.

Questions for the Expert

As I've been conducting my research on China's use of technology, I came across an individual whose area of expertise supports well my area of interest. John Tkacik Jr. is a former U.S. Diplomat specializing in foreign policy and relations with China. Under the Clinton adminstration, Mr. Tkacik served as the Chief of China Intelligence in the U.S. Department of State. Now retired from active positions in diplomacy, he is a Research Fellow for The Heritage Foundation, and his article "China's Orwellian Internet" has already played integral roles in earlier posts.

The article "China's Orwellian Internet", however, was written in 2004. Hoping to hear Mr. Tkacik's opinion on more recent issues, I sent the following e-mail this afternoon:

Mr. Tkacik,

Like you, I have had the opportunity to spend a portion of my life in Asia; I lived in Taiwan for nearly 18 months and entertain thoughts for a future life on the mainland. Though your experience dwarfs that of my own, I, too, understand and appreciate the distinctive nuances of the Chinese people. I have since returned, an am currently completing my undergraduate studies in English at Brigham Young University.

It was my experience in Asia which has cultivated my current interest in the diverse issues facing both China and Taiwan. Since my return from Asia six months ago, I have engaged myself in amateur research examining China's state policies through the interpretive lenses of George Orwell's text, 1984. Specifically, I am exploring the paradoxical images associated with the Internet; human rights optimists rally behind the Internet as a weapon to attack Communism's totalitarian rule, while others realize the manipulative grip the government exercises over this digitalized method of expression as it would any other. The underlying thesis of my research is to explore the role the Internet plays against the predictions made by Orwell himself: does the advent of new technology reason an incarnation of Orwell's totalitarian state as impossible or inevitable?

It should come as little surprise that my research brought me to your door. I recently discovered your article "China's Orwellian Internet" and in your arguments found evidence to support my own. Like you, I am forced to see the Internet as another method to secure government power. Though I can empathize with those who optimistically hope the Internet will provide an avenue of free speech, my research has repeatedly proven otherwise. Referring again to your article "China's Orwellian Internet," I was particularly impressed with your numerous accounts of those individuals found on the wrong side of government favor; I have continued researching similar veins and have been particularly impressed by the government response to, as Orwell would say, thought criminals, such as Gao Zhisheng and Liu Xiaobo.

Your time, I understand, is extremely valuable; I would not want to take away from projects of larger importance. However, as your time allows, I would be very interested to hear further thoughts on the role Internet is playing in China. Do you still see it as a machine hurdling the government toward the totalitarian regime predicted by Orwell, or do you think it has already arrived? Or, contrastingly, it is really the beacon of free speech and free though so many wish it to be?

As a final thought, I have included a substantial portion of "China's Orwellian Internet" on a blog designed solely for recording my research. If you feel so inclined, it may be read under the post Thoughtcrime on the Internet on my blog New Experimentation.

Again, Mr. Tkacik, I thank you for your time and, if available, hope to hear further your thoughts on the state of affairs in China.