China's deep surveillance state meets some public resistance

China's massive efforts to build a dictatorship that cannot be overthrown has been of personal interest since I came to understand its goal. What is going on in China is a fascinating and terrifying experiment in how far tyrants can go in monitoring and controlling a modern society. 

The government there is building what it hopes will be an impenetrable tyranny. The tyranny infrastructure uses sophisticated digital surveillance technology, human cognitive biology and social science. The goal includes government attempts to literally shape people's perceptions of reality, how they think about what they think they see, and what their options might be based on government-shaped thinking. The basis for this experiment lies in modern digital surveillance technology, and cutting edge cognitive biology and social behavior science.

A recent huge data hack in China led some Chinese citizens to complain and to try to resist the growing penetration of intense surveillance into the lives of average people. As usual, dark free speech from the government is thick and mostly effective. But, there are signs of some restlessness with what the government is doing and how much control it exerts over most activities that average people routinely engage in.

 The New York Times writes:

China’s Surveillance State Hits Rare Resistance From Its Own Subjects

Beijing’s swift move to censor news about one of the largest known data breaches shows keen awareness of how major security lapses can harm its credibility.

Chinese artists have staged performances to highlight the ubiquity of surveillance cameras. Privacy activists have filed lawsuits against the collection of facial recognition data. Ordinary citizens and establishment intellectuals alike have pushed back against the abuse of Covid tracking apps by the authorities to curb protests. Internet users have shared tips on how to evade digital monitoring.

As China builds up its vast surveillance and security apparatus, it is running up against growing public unease about the lack of safeguards to prevent the theft or misuse of personal data. The ruling Communist Party is keenly aware of the cost to its credibility of any major security lapses: Last week, it moved systematically to squelch news about what was probably the largest known breach of a Chinese government computer system, involving the personal information of as many as one billion citizens.

The breach dealt a blow to Beijing, exposing the risks of its expansive efforts to vacuum up enormous amounts of digital and biological information on the daily activities and social connections of its people from social media posts, biometric data, phone records and surveillance videos. The government says these efforts are necessary for public safety: to limit the spread of Covid, for instance, or to catch criminals. But its failure to protect the data exposes citizens to problems like fraud and extortion, and threatens to erode people’s willingness to comply with surveillance.

“You never know who is going to sell or leak your information,” said Jewel Liao, a Shanghai resident whose details were among those released in the leak.

China, which has been racing to create one of the world’s toughest data privacy regimes, frequently excoriates companies for mishandling data. But the authorities rarely point fingers at the country’s other top collector of personal information: the government itself.

Security researchers say the leaked database, apparently used by the police in Shanghai, had been left online and unsecured for months. It was exposed after an anonymous user posted in an online forum offering to sell the vast trove of data for 10 Bitcoin, or about $200,000. The New York Times confirmed parts of a sample of the database released by the anonymous user, who posted under the name ChinaDan.

In addition to basic information like names, addresses and ID numbers, the sample featured details that appeared to be drawn from external databases, like instructions for couriers on where to drop off deliveries, raising questions about how much information private companies share with the authorities. Of particular concern for many, it also contained intensely personal information, such as police reports that included the names of people accused of rape and domestic violence, as well as private information about political dissidents.

The government has sought to erase nearly all discussion of the leak. At a cabinet meeting led by China’s premier, Li Keqiang, last week, officials made only a passing reference to the question of privacy, emphasizing the need to “defend information security” so that the public and businesses could “operate with peace of mind,” according to the official Xinhua News Agency.

Now, there are signs that people are growing wary of the government and public institutions, too, as they see how their own data is being used against them. Last month, a nationwide outcry erupted over the apparent abuse of Covid-19 tracking technology by local authorities.

Protesters fighting to recover their savings from four rural banks in the central Chinese city of Zhengzhou found that the mobile apps used to identify and isolate people who might be spreading Covid had turned from green — meaning safe — to red, a designation that would prevent them from moving freely.

A routine street surveillance post in Shanghai

“There is no privacy in China,” said Silvia Si, 30, a protester whose health code had turned red. The authorities in Zhengzhou, under pressure to account for the episode, later punished five officials for changing the codes of more than 1,300 customers.

On Wednesday, a blogger in Beijing posted on Weibo that he was refusing to wear an electronic bracelet to track his movements while in isolation, saying the device was an “electronic shackle” and an infringement on his privacy. The post was liked around 60,000 times, and users flooded it with responses. Many said the bracelet reminded them of the treatment of criminals; others called it a ploy to surreptitiously collect personal information. The post was later taken down by censors, the blogger said.

Other comments in the NYT article indicate that some citizens are protesting in little ways, but they understand that at this point, the government will get everything it wants in terms of surveillance intrusiveness. They are just hoping for a brief respite from creeping intrusions into their private lives. If that is the best the Chinese people can do at this point in the great experiment in forever tyranny, it looks like the tyrants just might succeed in building a society that cannot ever throw off its oppressors.

China is leading the way is technology-based tyranny. After Russia invaded Ukraine, Putin realized he had to go all in on surveillance and information control just like China has done. Putin is building his version of Chinese tyranny in Russia. Tyrants everywhere are watching these experiments very carefully. If this social control experiment works in China and Russia, it could work just about everywhere. And, as surveillance technology continues to advance, the tyrants will implement it nationwide as soon as possible.

This is a significant part of the reason that I see democracy vs. tyranny as a global war. If democracy loses and tyrants really can build an impenetrable authoritarian state that citizens cannot breach, we could be witnessing the beginning of the end of a period for human flourishing and liberty. Not only would the American experiment end in tyranny, democracy worldwide would end.

Q: Is it reasonable to think that in time America could potentially succumb to the same kind of authoritarian police state that the tyrants in China and Russia are trying to build right now?[1] 

Footnote: 

1. There seems to be no shortage of authoritarian-minded people willing to cooperate and participate in tyranny. Because of that there will very likely (99% chance) always be more than plenty of workers, implementers and self-interested opportunists who foster and support tyrants at the expense of individual liberty. China's and Russia's surveillance states are not building or maintaining themselves. That takes hundreds of thousands of willing participants, maybe millions.

Moore v. Harper: The end of free and fair elections (and democracy) is on the horizon

Background

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators. -- US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4

Explanation & context: Sec. 4 specifies that state legislatures control the times, places and manner of federal elections, but Congress can pass law to overturn state law. Sec. 4 does not mention (i) what jurisdiction state courts have, if any, or (ii) how conflicts between a state election law and a state constitution are to be handled. The radical right wants to neuter state courts so radicals are free to pass laws that neuter the results of federal elections, even if it conflicts with the state constitution. Key points:

• The concept of free and fair elections is not in the US Constitution but it can be found in state constitutions.
• Republicans control the legislatures of 30 states.
• If federal elections of 30 Republican-controlled state legislatures are rigged for partisan advantage, Democrats will very likely not be able to control the House of Representatives or the White House. Senate elections cannot be rigged because they are statewide elections and there are no voting districts to rig.  
• Republicans could act to eliminate state constitution provisions that protect free and fair elections, but it is easier and far better political optics to not be seen as opposing free and fair elections. Therefore, get the Supreme Court to give state legislatures the power to get state courts out of the way as the last line of defense of free and fair elections. Republicans will simply deflect blame to the Constitution, Democrats and/or the Supreme Court for whatever public blowback there might be from rendering of federal elections a purely partisan sham.
• Republicans already have the power to freely rig elections for state legislatures for partisan advantage, so their lock on control of state legislatures seems to be baked in for decades to come. That means that Democrats will very likely be locked out of the House and White House for decades to come, unless enough red states turn blue and the blue states play the same hardball rigged elections game that radical Republicans are playing.
• Some blue states have already unilaterally surrendered the game because they have state constitutions or laws that limit election rigging in defense of free and fair elections. For example, California has 9 contested House voting districts because a commission draws districts to protect voters. If that law went away, the number of competitive House districts would drop from 9 to maybe 3 or 4, maybe less.
• As long as Congress remains gridlocked, Republicans will block all proposed federal laws designed to defend free and fair elections. Senate Democrats cannot get past the filibuster, so they are 100% neutered.
• To hint at the depth of Republican cynicism and fascist belief that elections are just crap that need to be neutered, consider HR1. HR 1 was the first bill the House passed after Democrats took control of the House in Jan. 2021. The proposed bill expands voting rights, changes campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, bans partisan gerrymandering, and creates new ethics rules for federal officeholders. Nearly all Republicans in congress bitterly oppose HR 1. It is dead in the Senate because the Democrats cannot override a Republican filibuster. 
• Many or most regular conservatives (assuming any are left) and nearly all or all radical right Republicans see HR 1 as vicious, partisan hardball tactics. If protecting free and fair elections is vicious, partisan hardball tactics, then the fascists are right. But if so, then what does one call what the fascists are trying to accomplish in Moore v. Harper (discussed below), eliminating free and fair elections? Softball politics? 

Moore v. Harper, the end of free and fair elections 

and the rise of American fascism 

A couple of weeks ago, the Supreme Court accepted a case called Moore v. Harper. Radical right Republicans intend to use that case to make a legal argument called the “independent state legislature” theory the law of the land. At the same time, the radical right wants to obliterate the concept of free and fair elections. This is something that Republican fascists have been dreaming about for decades. The concept of free and fair elections stands in the way of the radical right’s insatiable lust for much more power and wealth for elites. 

In essence, the radicals want the Supreme Court to declare that state courts have very little jurisdiction to rule on state laws that potentially limit a legislature’s ability to rig elections for partisan advantage. At present, state courts can rule that a legislature’s gerrymander or overturn the results of a popular vote is unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. If the Supreme Court decides that the independent state legislature theory is the correct interpretation of Art. 1, Sec. 4 of the Constitution, that would hand power to fully obliterate the free and fair concept and replace it with raw partisan power in deciding elections. The popular vote becomes irrelevant.

The Moore case comes out of North Carolina where the state courts rejected a radical Republican gerrymander of federal voting districts for the House of Representatives.[1] One legal analysis comments:

In rejecting petitioners’ Elections Clause challenge, the North Carolina Supreme Court cited Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ­­­___ (2019), for the proposition that “state constitutions can provide standards and guidance for state courts to apply” in addressing partisan gerrymandering, and claimed “a long line of decisions” by the U.S. Supreme Court confirms the more general proposition that “state courts may review state laws governing federal elections to determine whether they comply with the state constitution.” The General Assembly responded by preparing a revised congressional map. The trial court rejected that map, however, and adopted one prepared by three Special Masters it had appointed to assist in the remedial process. The North Carolina Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme Court denied petitioners’ motion for a stay, though four Justices wrote to note the importance of the Elections Clause issue.

Petitioners [the radical right Republicans] argue that “[t]o secure self-government, [the Elections Clause] vests the power to regulate federal senate and congressional elections in each State’s legislature, subject only to supervision by Congress. The state supreme court’s usurpation of that authority—pursuant to vague and indeterminate state constitutional provisions securing free speech, equal protection, and free and fair elections—simply cannot be squared with the lines drawn by the Elections Clause.” Petitioners insist that “’the Legislature’ means now what it meant [at the founding], ‘the representative body which ma[kes] the laws of the people.’” “The Constitution thus grants the state ‘Legislature’ primacy in setting the rules for federal elections, subject to check only by Congress.”

There is is, right out in the open: Four radical right Supreme Court justices want to blow off free speech, equal protection and free and fair elections. Equal protection is targeted because it can be used as a basis to argue that a rigged election violates the rights of people whose votes have been trashed by Republican tyrants. 

The importance of this case ranks right up there with Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court decision that obliterated Roe v. Wade. Arguably it is significantly more important. Moore is a direct fascist attack on one of the last lines of defense of democracy. The radical Republican goal here is crystal clear and undeniable: They want to neuter the power of people’s votes. 

Footnote: 

1. Politico comments on the Moore case:

But the Republican legislators argued in an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state court had extremely limited authority to police the legislature on federal election matters — a theory known as the “independent state legislature” theory.

The theory holds that state legislatures have near-uncheckable authority to set procedures for federal elections — and state courts have either a limited or even no ability to rule on those laws. The theory is based on a pair of clauses in the constitution, the Electors Clause and the Elections Clause, that mention state legislatures but do not explicitly mention the judiciary.

Republicans have increasingly promoted the theory as a way around state courts that have recently struck down redistricting maps as partisan gerrymanders.

The next front in the radical right war on democracy: Turning political groups into religions

A core goal of the Christian nationalist political movement is to aggressively protect and expand tax breaks for its growing scope of allegedly religious activities. Rapacious Christian gold diggers are claiming religious freedom for more and more activities. Those activities are qualifying for IRS tax status and direct payment from governments or indirect tax subsidies. The Supreme Court significantly expanded the reach of religion into state revenue streams in its recent decision requiring states to support religious schools (Supreme Court Rejects Maine’s Ban on Aid to Religious Schools -- The decision was the latest in a series of rulings forbidding the exclusion of religious institutions from government programs).

Apparently, radical right Republican political groups are waking up to the idea of going from non-profit groups with some tax breaks to religious organizations with much better tax breaks. Key reasons to convert from a "charity" to a "religion" are (1) more tax breaks, and more importantly (2) protection from mandatory divulging of financial information. Unlike charities, religious organizations do not have to make their finances public. Fascist Republicans want to do their dirty work in private.

ProPublica writes:

The Family Research Council’s multimillion-dollar headquarters sit on G Street in Washington, D.C., just steps from the U.S. Capitol and the White House, a spot ideally situated for its work as a right-wing policy think tank and political pressure group.

From its perch at the heart of the nation’s capital, the FRC has pushed for legislation banning gender-affirming surgery; filed amicus briefs supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade; and advocated for religious exemptions to civil rights laws. Its longtime head, a former state lawmaker and ordained minister named Tony Perkins, claims credit for pushing the Republican platform rightward over the past two decades.

What is the FRC? Its website sums up the answer to this question in 63 words: “A nonprofit research and educational organization dedicated to articulating and advancing a family-centered philosophy of public life. In addition to providing policy research and analysis for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government, FRC seeks to inform the news media, the academic community, business leaders, and the general public about family issues that affect the nation from a biblical worldview.”

In the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, though, it is also a church, with Perkins as its religious leader.

According to documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act and given to ProPublica, the FRC filed an application to change its status to an “association of churches,” a designation commonly used by groups with member churches like the Southern Baptist Convention, in March 2020. The agency approved the change a few months later.

The FRC is one of a growing list of activist groups to seek church status, a designation that comes with the ability for an organization to shield itself from financial scrutiny. Once the IRS blessed it as an association of churches, the FRC was no longer required to file a public tax return, known as a Form 990, revealing key staffer salaries, the names of board members and related organizations, large payments to independent contractors and grants the organization has made. Unlike with other charities, IRS investigators can’t initiate an audit on a church unless a high-level Treasury Department official has approved the investigation.

[Not surprisingly,] the FRC declined to make officials available for an interview or answer any questions for this story. Its former parent organization, Focus on the Family, changed its designation to become a church in 2016. In a statement, the organization said it made the switch largely out of concern for donor privacy, noting that many groups like it have made the same change. Many of them claim they operated in practice as churches or associations of churches all along.

Warren Cole Smith, president of the Christian transparency watchdog MinistryWatch, said he believes groups like these are seeking church status with the IRS for the protections it confers.

“I don’t believe that a lot of the organizations that have filed for the church exemption are in fact churches,” he said. “And I don’t think that they think that they are in fact churches.”

Unlike the Southern Baptist Convention, whose website hosts a directory of more than 50,000 affiliated churches, the FRC’s site does not list these partners or mention the word “church” anywhere on its home page. The FRC’s application to become an association of churches didn’t include this list of partner churches, nor did it provide the names to ProPublica.

The organization’s claim to be an association of churches is disingenuous, said Frederick Clarkson, who researches the Christian right at nonpartisan social justice think tank Political Research Associates.

“The FRC can say whatever bullshit things they want to,” he said. “The IRS should recognize it as a bad argument.”

Three experts told ProPublica that the IRS is failing to use its full powers to determine who gets the special privileges afforded to churches. And when a group like the FRC appears to push the limits of what charities are allowed to do — particularly relating to their partisan political activity — the IRS doesn’t often step in to crack down. [Not surprisingly,] the IRS did not answer a list of detailed questions for this story or make anyone available for an interview.

The American Family Association, a Tupelo, Mississippi-based group that runs the influential American Family Radio network, as well as a film studio and magazine, changed its designation to a church in early 2022, according to IRS data. The association sends out frequent “action alerts” to subscribers asking them to sign petitions opposing government appointees or boycott media and brands that it has identified as supporting LGBTQ rights or abortion access. [Not surprisingly], the organization declined to respond to a request for comment.

It is really important to understand that the fascist Republican assault on democracy, secularism and civil liberties is well-funded, aggressive, multi-pronged and increasingly successful. Both Christian nationalists and laissez-faire capitalists are exploiting every angle of attack they can exploit. In essence, in addition to controlling society, they want to gain full control of the federal government, all sources of tax revenues and more tax subsidies. 

In other words, Republican fascists are hell-bent on using our tax dollars and subsidies against us to take away our democracy and civil liberties. After decades of focused effort, the radical right is starting to succeed on a massive scale. We are in urgent, grave danger.

Convergence of Republican Party and foreign authoritarianism in democracies under attack

ACUF is the American Conservative Union Foundation

American anti-democratic authoritarians are merging 

with those in Hungary

Acknowledgement: The following is copied and lightly edited from a comment PD posted in another discussion thread yesterday. PD synthesizes complicated things extremely well into coherence. Better than me, that's for sure. I appreciate his time and effort here a great deal. This is quite timely and informative.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Initial comment: Hungary and Poland are not the USA. Again, I'd compare us to England, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Maligned as the Anglo-American world, although I very much admire it.

PD's response: When I mentioned Orban's Hungary as an example of bloodless de-democratization, you said,

Hungary and Poland are not the USA.

Orban is now going to speak alongside Trump and Steve Bannon at CPAC in Texas next month. As the articles and video linked below report, the GOP and the Hungarian autocrat are becoming much closer. As you know, I don't think interwar Germany is a good point of comparison with the US. But I do think the democratic backslide in Hungary is much more relevant than that.

Apparently the GOP elites agree. There is now a Hungarian version of the US-based Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) which opened in May, with Orban as the main speaker, of course. CPAC US and CPAC-Hungary have signed a "Memorandum of Understanding"-- note the American and Hungarian flags waving harmoniously behind Orban as he states that,

We need to take back the institutions in Washington and Brussels. We need to work with friends and allies. We need to coordinate the movement of our troops, because we have a big challenge ahead of us. 2024 will be decisive.

See also this ABC News article: Hungarian nationalist PM Orban to deliver speech at CPAC, which includes these comments: "BUDAPEST, Hungary -- Hungary's nationalist prime minister will speak at a conference of prominent U.S. conservatives this summer, the latest sign of tightening relations between Hungarian and American conservatives."

While speaking on the theme of "God, homeland and family" (as shown in the video), Orban speaks of the need to have government control the media, something he has managed to do in Hungary, to a great extent. Speaking of Washington and Budapest as the "two fronts of the War for Western Civilization," he said:

Dear friends, let's have our own media. The madness of the progressive left can only be demonstrated if there is media to help us do so.

As I also told you earlier, this is why I don't talk about "wokeness" anymore. It is being used as the main bait for radicalizing disenchanted citizens who used to be mainstream, but got upset about the culture wars. Of course, once you take the bait there comes the switch: you let Dear Leader ( Orban? Trump? DeSantis? Pres. Tucker?) "run the show"-- literally and figuratively. And what a show it is, with 24/7 fear-mongering about non-white immigrants, LGBTQ causes and the like. We learned from 1/6 Select Committee testimony yesterday that Twitter was cowed by Trump for months. "If that account had belonged to anybody else it would have been deleted long before 1/6" said a lead moderator for Twitter in testimony. Fox, OAN, and others already thrive as, essentially, GOP propaganda outlets with almost no regard for evidence based reporting. Do we even want to imagine emulating the Hungarian model of state controlled media?? (see, e.g., New Report: Hungary dismantles media freedom and pluralism)

This is not good news, IM. The GOP and far Right parties in Europe are becoming more and more cooperative. Just a couple of months back, Steve Bannon was in France sharing the stage with then-presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen (leader of the National Front or National Rally). Thankfully, she lost. But that's not my point. What the GOP is becoming/has become here has its analogues in much of Europe where reactionary, and often bigoted parties have been growing alarmingly over the past 5 or 6 years (esp. since the refugee crisis and Brexit). Seeing a European iteration of CPAC in this context is alarming. Jonathon Krohn, one of the few journalists allowed to cover the opening of CPAC-Hungary writes:

BUDAPEST, Hungary — European and American conservatives descended on this city Thursday morning to bemoan the supposed ‘suicide’ of Western civilization. The impending cultural death was blamed on a variety of causes, including immigrants who were “replacing” native-born workers; communists and “progressivists” pushing “gender madness”; and liberal democracy, which was creating a new “civic religion” out of the rights of man. Speakers, ranging from the CEO of Parler to the Prime Minister of Hungary, railed against the ‘woke’ media and the “unified troops of the international left” during a series of programming blocs with titles like “Western Civilization Under Attack,” “In God We Trust,” and “The Culture Wars in the Media.” It was the opening day of CPAC Hungary, the first European edition of the American Conservative Union’s flagship confab, and dark clouds were forming over Hungary....

What were those ideas and how could [Europe and America] be salvaged?

The answers proposed by an international slate of nationalist speakers betrayed a growing affinity between American conservatism and illiberal authoritarians in Europe. Immigration, gender identity, abortion rights, foreign culture, and the media all needed to be heavily controlled by stronghanded politicos in order save the native (white) population, the Church, and ‘Western civilization.’

“Hungary is the laboratory where we have managed to come up with the antidote for progressive dominance,” said right-wing Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orban. “The nation comes first: Hungary first, America first.”

The full article, CPAC Europe is a Safe Space for Authoritarians -- and the Republicans Who Love Them, is here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've said it before here and say it again: The intolerant, anti-democratic authoritarianism that the Republican Party, T**** and their dark free speech Leviathan (Faux News, etc.) have fomented and unleashed has taken on a life of its own. Things are spinning out of control and the odds of partisan social violence continues to increase with time.

This is what fascist Republican 

talking points actually mean