With the sumer over and winter/fall season now upon us, the minds of many a fun/tradition loving Chinese naturally turns to one thing: Festivals, and while China's winter/fall festivals are many and varied - Ranging from from nationally celebrated festivals such as the Moon festival to the festivals of local regions and China's various ethnic groups - they all have one thing in common (Aside from smoking, drinking, and eating till you collapse), that is: Fireworks.

Fireworks?

Fireworks are as synonymous with China as firearms are with America, and are as important to China's culture as counterfeit goods are to its economy.

Chinese culture holds that they should be let off at most every occasion of note. From the somber to the celebratory in order to ward of ill airs and to bring good fortune. Tradition has it that fireworks accomplish this task by frightening away bad spirits whom apparently cannot stand the din. However, this is not the real reason. The real reason is that bad spirits aren't stupid: If you see a Chinese bearing down on you with a firework in one hand and a lit match in the other there is little better advice that you can take than to find something solid and to get behind it because, while fireworks are synonymous with China, common sense isn't.

During the 2007 New year period (Spring Festival) firecrackers alone caused over 380 fires, and resulted in around 800 emergency room visits, and that was just in Beijing.

Firework Safety?

Firework safety is almost non-existent in China. This is largely because most Chinese apply the following rules:

1) The phrase "Minimum safe distance" is a filthy foreign contrivance that has no place in modern Chinese society, as are the phrases "do not aim at face" and "not to taken used orally".

2) When the instructions say "Attach to launching stake and light with taper" what they really mean is "Hold in hand and light with a cigarette". While "Point away from spectators" and "fasten securely" means that you should do the exact opposite

3) That the word "Danger" means "Stand real close to get a good view" and "For Commercial use only" means "Let the kid light it".

Safety Tips?

With the above in mind, ACB has developed the following safety guide. A list of firework related hints and tips to ensure that weddings aren't followed by funerals, and that celebrations do not result in emasculations.

Tip 1) Do not hold fireworks in your hand.

 

Before	After

Tip 2) Aim fireworks away from crowds.

Before	After

Tip 3) No matter how funny it may seem, fireworks and groins do not mix.

Before	After

 

It might seem odd, even absurd to the point of unbelievability, but according to official documents obtained from the UN it's true. Washington and Beijing are currently working on a joint UN proposal that could bring an end to Internet anonymity.

Death of Web Privacy?

In a move that has been condemned by privacy and human rights interests the world over Washington has joined with Beijing to move forward the controversial draft issued by United Nations International Telecommunication Union working groups “Study Group 17”. The proposal, known as "Q6/17 TD 4068" is a formal document that is currently in the draft stages which was put forward by the Chinese government. It's purpose, to put in place a mechanism by which any communications over the Internet can be tracked back to its source. In effect, ending Internet privacy and anonymity.

A draft of TD 4068, obtained by this website, list two core objectives:

• Any type of IP packets (including spoofed IP) can be traced backward to its origin
• In order to ensure traceability, essential information of the originator should be logged by network

Even taken in isolation either of these two objectives could have significant privacy implications. The first would in effect mandate that all current Internet privacy technologies be rendered useless by allowing any communication - or fragment of any communication - to be tracked back to its sender. The second would mandate that every point across the Internet through which a communication - or fragment of a communication - traveled must log log where said came from and where it is going to.

Together, these two proposals would render useless the anonymous proxies and onion routing technologies that many of China's Internet dissidents use to protect their identities. Further more, this would not only effect those using proxy technologies to post to the Internet, but also those using them simply to read content that Beijing does not wish them to read. Additionally, the proposal would not only allow Beijing to track the source and destination of any Internet traffic originating or terminating in China, but also the source and destination of any traffic that merely passed through the Chinese Internet infrastructure on its way to/from another destination.

In all the Q6/17 TD 4068 draft lists 5 envisioned scenarios. All of which have significant privacy implications.

• Trace-back of malicious IP packets
• Trace-back  for normal IP packets
• Trace-back of IP packets with dynamic address
• Trace-back of spoofed IP packets
• Trace-back across different management domains

Q6/17 TD 4068 calls for a system that could cover any kind of network and which would enable tracking of a user given only a minimal sample of data.


Of particular concern to privacy advocates is requirement 4, a requirement for a tracking system to be able to track Internet traffic through Network Address Translation (NAT). Network Address translation allows many computers/networks to access the Internet through a single point, and while that point is visible to the Internet the computers/networks remain invisible.

Many companies and Internet service providers use NAT. Using NAT renders individual computers invisible behind a single corporate or network identity, protecting them from malicious Internet attack and keeping their identities hidden. In order to locate a user hidden behind NAT the company or Internet service provider must be approached directly and a request must be made to hand over the identity of the user. However if Q6/17 TD 4068 were to mandate the creation of a mechanism by which data could be tracked through NAT it would potentially open up individual computers to direct scrutiny when previously only the computer providing the NAT would have been visible.

For example, under the current system an office block may have several hundred computers connected to a single Internet link, and only the entry point to the network would be visible. Under Q6/17 TD 4068 any computer on the network would be become visible if it communicated with another via the Internet. The same would be true for home networks. Currently a home Internet user may have several computers connected to the same broadband connection and only the home would be visible, under Q6/17 TD 4068 every computer that communicated to with the Internet would be individually identifiable over the Internet via the serial number (Known as a Media Access Control address) of its network card.

Public Face?

On the face of it, a proposal to monitor individual Internet use around the world does not seem in keeping with the general ethos of the United Nations. For this reason the latest draft of Q6/17 TD 4068 - due to be put before Study Group 2/17 later this month - has been put forward as a means of crime/terrorism prevention  rather than as a means of Internet surveillance

According to to Chinese officials the primary purpose of Q6/17 TD 4068 would be to ensure that mechanisms were put in place that would make it harder for criminals to hide their location and identities, as well as to provide involved parties with the means to better regulate Internet traffic.

One example given in the current draft of Q6/17 TD 4068 proposes that tracking mechanisms could be used to zero in on those responsible for so-called Distributed Denial of Service attacks (DDOS) - incidents in which criminals uses multiple computers around the world to overload sections of the Internet.



According to a list of case studies that has been circulating amongst privacy groups Beijing has put forwards several key scenarios in which mechanisms stemming from Q6/17 TD 4068 could be used to better manage the Internet. ACB has not independently verified the authenticity of this document.


Beijing's Angle?

While it may seem laudable for China to propose means of preventing the misuse and abuse of the Internet by criminal elements, China watchers have voiced that the mechanisms being discussed in Q6/17 TD 4068 could have very serious implications for Internet use in China because the same mechanisms that could be used to track criminals using the Internet for malicious purposes could also be used to track Internet dissidents with legitimate issues of free speech.

By mandating that records be kept of the passage of data across the Internet Beijing would be able to track the activities of any Internet users whose data originated/terminated in China, or merely passed through China's Internet infrastructure. In turn, this would mean that Beijing would be able to locate any individual who posted content on the Internet that it deemed to be unfavorable, as well as to track the locations of any users who viewed it.

At present, Beijing has the ability to track the activities of Chinese Internet users, but it is extremely limited. If a user posts content to a server located in China Beijing can force the owner of the server to surrender the Internet address that the user used to connect to the server which links the user back to their Internet Service Provide and in turn back to their real world identity. It currently uses this information to track down and detain those who speak out against the state line on history, society or politics, in order to stifle dissent.

However, users are currently able to connect to privacy servers/services outside of China known as proxy servers or Onion Routers. In the case of proxy servers a machine located outside of China becomes an intermediary for Internet traffic. It takes traffic from the user and forwards it on as if it were its own traffic and relays any return data back to the user, effectively swapping the user's traceable identity for its own much more anonymous identity, with only the intermediary server actually knowing the identities of both the traffics source and destination. In the case of onion routers this is done many times, with each server knowing only the identity of the servers on either side of itself. In order for the user to be identified Chinese authorities would need to be able to access the details from all of the servers in the chain. This is all but impossible to do.

Were Q6/17 TD 4068 to be fully realized the details of the both the source and destination of the data, and thus both the identity of the user and the website that they are communicating with would be available to Beijing. In fact the data itself could carry this information. Allowing Chinese security forces to find and detain any Internet Chinese user that they pleased with comparative easy. For example, tracing Internet users whom revealed details of political corruption or whom use the Internet to call for greater freedom of speech on the Mainland.

Current drafts of Q6/17 TD 4068 contain no safe guards to prevent if from being misused by China in this manner and there are few indications what, if any, safeguards are may be added. Additionally, under current proposals it appears that the level of tracing used would be left up to domestic law. Which would give Beijing a free hand to track and detain Internet dissidents at will


Washington's Angle?

Almost since the day that Internet use became a medium for political and social expression in China, US insiders have been expressing concern about Beijing's efforts to crack down on web dissidents. Therefore it would, on the face of it, appear illogical for Washington to back a proposal that would enable China to neutralize many of the mechanisms through which Internet dissidents maintain their privacy, and thus also their liberty. However, when viewed from a wider perspective, the reasoning becomes clear: America also has problem of its own with Internet anonymity.

One of America's primary interests pushing through Q6/17 TD 4068 from draft to legislation becomes apparent when you stand back and see exactly how much America is reliant on the Internet. American businesses relies on the Internet as a medium form communications and commerce, the American public relies on it for social interaction and shopping, and the American government relies on it in order to connect disparate government branches and offices the world over. Therefore anything that disrupts the Internet also disrupts the running of America.

US Internet interests come under attack on a daily basis. With So-called Denial of Service attacks, organized botnet attacks, and hackers accounting for countless losses in money and time. At present Internet anonymity makes tracking domestic perpetrators tough and overseas perpetrators almost impossible. It also makes routing Internet traffic around attack sites tough as it can be problematic to tell legitimate Internet traffic from illegitimate Internet traffic, and to tell priority traffic from background chatter. On paper, a successful implementation of Q6/17 TD 4068 would allow US law enforcement to track and apprehend more of those responsible than ever before and faster than ever before. Making e-crime less profitable and more likely to result in conviction.

With this said, a second reason for America's interest in Q6/17 TD 4068 become clear when you look at the US representative to Study Group 17, one Richard C Brackney. A senior official with the National Security Agency: A subdivision of the US Department of Defense.


Currently the US is engaged in a number of military and ideological struggles. Some domestic, some international, and some spanning both. In this field the US experiences many of the same issues as China when it comes to identifying Internet users who post content that contradicts its own state line, or which US security forces deem to be harmful to US interests. Were Q6/17 TD 4068 to lead to world wide tracking mechanism it would allow organizations such as the NSA and CIA to better track people inciting violence against America, such as posters on Islamic fundamentalist websites or radical anti-federalist groups. However the same mechanisms would also allow the identification and detention of domestic dissidents such as anti-war activists whom post pictures of the coffins of US soldiers returning for burial or whom identify failings within the US security apparatus such as the use of torture and the mistreatment of detainees by mercenary groups under US pay.


China watchers not that since 9/11 US intelligence agencies have been given significantly increased surveillance powers. Including the ability to record private domestic telephone conversations without the need for court approval.

Hurdles?

It has yet to be seen whether Q6/17 TD 4068 will move beyond the draft stage, and what impact, if any it will have on personal privacy.

Though desired by both Washington and Beijing Q6/17 TD 4068 has a number of obsticaly in its path. Many of these odsticale take the form of questions about  the legallity of the proposals contained within the draft of Q6/17 TD 4068. As things stand Q6/17 TD 4068 contradicts a number of international laws and charters. Including the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that governments must not put in place mechanisms that would inhibit the peoples right to freedom of speech, the European Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet (2003) which states that countries must "respect the will of users of the Internet not to disclose their identity", and the ITU constitution which mandates that the organization must not interfere with "the secrecy of international correspondence".


The articles of the US constitutional also brings the legality of Q6/17 TD 4068 into question, with First Amendment president sustaining that the right to anonymity is vital to maintaining freedom of speech.

Q6/17 TD 4068?

Q6/17 TD 4068 is a controversial draft document put forward to the UN's International Telecommunication Union Study Group 2/17 in April 2008 (http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/0A/0D/T0A0D00000D0003MSWE.doc) using the working title "Trace Back Use Case and Requirements".

Q6/17 TD 4068 arose out of earlier Chinese concerns that it was unable to monitor Voice over Internet Protocol telephone services. Officially, China's concerns were raised due to issues of law enforcement and the prosecution of the so-called War on Terror. Unofficially, China watchers have questioned whether Beijing's real concern was more to do with the fact that because VIOP users were not subject to the same monitoring and interception technologies as conventional telecoms systems they could be used to communicate ideas that contradict Beijing's state line on history society and politics in comparative privacy from the government.


The members of Study Group 2/17 are

• Richard C Brackney
• Tian Huirong
• Youm Heung-Youl
• Gregg Schudel
• Craig Schultz

Brackney is a senior official with the US NSA, Tian works for China's state manager RITT telecoms interest, Schudel works for Cisco Systems and Schultz represents LAC, a network security interest.

The next meeting to discuss the Q6/17 TD 4068 draft will be held later this month. The ITU has decreed that the meeting will be closed to the public and that the minutes will be sealed to general viewing.

All that ACB can so is that this sounds quite far removed from Beijing's idea of a "harmonious society". Care of the Dow-Jones Newswire service.

If there is one thing that ACB has learned from watching various riots around the world is this: that the size of the disturbance is often more closely related to the level of dissatisfaction and disaffection in the region than it is to the actual trigger event. People who are happy in their lives and with their surroundings can be exposed to a truly heinous act and they will react with shock and reservation, while people who are deeply unhappy with their lot and their place in life will react with explosive fury to an act of everyday callousness by an official, or even (as evidenced by the riots in Paris some time back) an act of stupidity by the victims themselves. Putting this lesson up against the backdrop of China one has to question exactly how disaffected people need to become in order to protest in such large numbers. Often there is a lot more behind these riots than the trigger event implies.

whether or not you believe the press quoted figures of 10,000 Ningbo demonstrators (ACB as noted certain trends in Western media reporting), there certainly seem to be a lot more than the 50-100 people that Beijing proposes were there.

You don't need to be a veteran China watcher to know that there are certain topic that Beijing "prefers that the Chinese news media avoid", or to know that there are certain stories that Beijing prefers be approached from "a certain angle".

Most of these topics are well know. They include anything that might embarrass the government, which might point out failings in its policy, or which might indicate that there is widespread disaffection regarding the governments handling of a situation. For example, you won't find CCTV News talking about the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and if you see a headline in Xinhua about rural unrest it will usually be to blame it on ever nebulous "outsiders". None of whom have, so far, ever been identified.

However, not all of these topics - collectively known as the "Gray List" - are so well known, or even political in nature. Indeed, some are quite the opposite. One such topic is that of the Chinese state soccer team.

Giving it the Boot?

Despite not being involved in politics, not having committed any wanton atrocities (At least none off of the pitch), and not having been reviled by human right organizations the world over for several decades, China's state soccer team now finds itself sitting alongside the ranks of the late Chairmans Mao and Deng after a central government decree that its record be airbrushed in the Chinese media.

Decree?

According to sources within the Chinese media, Beijing has, this month, issued strict instructions to the nations media that the Chinese state soccer team be given an easy ride. With the Chinese Central Propaganda Department instructing the news media to reduce the level of criticism of the team, and to reframe from making detremental comments about it.

Up until the time of the decree the Chinese mens team had been seen as "fair game" for criticism. With both the private media and the state media heaviliy critisizing the teams performance and subjecting it to mockery.

Beijing's decree comes after the numerous reports in the Chinese news media criticizing China'a mens team team for its poor performance during the Olympics, and after a series of humiliating incidents - Including one in which Chinese player Tan Wangsong had to be removed from a match for striking Belgian Sebastien Pocognoli in the crotch - prompted scorn from Chinese fans and media commentators. No official reason was given for the decree. Though this is traditional with Beijing.

Despite the popularity of soccer in China, the state team has enjoyed little success, and has frequently been the subject of mockery in the media. Fans and sporting commentators blame this lack of success on a mixture of official corruption and a soccer training regime that emphasis individual prowess and skill over teamwork.